Peabody Energyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/504/all
en2015 Might Be a Big Peak Year for Climate Changehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/02/2015-big-year-climate-change
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/15869996127_0d52ffa294_z%20%281%29.jpg?itok=_Vwd01rv" width="200" height="147" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>While every year is crucial when it comes to reducing the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases polluting our atmosphere, 2015 is looking to be a super year and a possible turning point in which a few big decisions could make all the difference.</p>
<p>Here are five big things to watch in 2015:</p>
<p><strong>1. Paris <span class="caps">UN</span> Climate Conference</strong></p>
<p>Let's start at the end of 2015, when global leaders <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php?year=2015">are expected to show up in Paris, France,</a> in early December to negotiate a new global agreement on global warming pollution reductions. A preview of what is to come was on display in Lima, Peru, in early December when environment ministers and their delegations cobbled together the draft of what will be negotiated in Paris. The major sticking points in the negotiations were the same as they have been for a while now.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>The first big issue is the commitment of funding from developed nations, such as the U.S., Canada and the <span class="caps">EU</span>, to less-developed nations such as Ethiopia, Bangladesh and the Philippines, to help build renewable energy sources and avoid the use of coal and other carbon-intensive fossil fuels as their economies grow. While the goal is $100 billion in financial commitments, developed countries have <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/09/us-climatechange-lima-fund-idUSKBN0JN2D220141209">so far only put up $10 billion.</a></p>
<p>The second big issue on the negotiating table is the level of cuts to carbon emissions and by when they will be reached. Some countries want to commit to a shorter time period, like 2020, while others want a longer one. Any good project manager knows that clear, measurable objectives are the key to success. So nailing the percentage of carbon reductions countries will commit to, and by when, is crucial to success at the December 2015 Paris climate talks. </p>
<p>But prior to these talks, there are some other big moments on the horizon that will likely play a role in deciding whether the Paris talks are the final note in a year-long crescendo or if it will all fall flat.</p>
<p><strong>2. Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> Pipeline</strong></p>
<p><span class="caps">U.S.</span> President Obama has a big decision to make on the Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> pipeline in 2015. If approved, Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> would mean a massive expansion of the oilsands in Alberta, Canada. The big issue here is that the oilsands are very carbon-intensive to produce. A typical barrel of oilsands oil <a href="http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/climate">produces three to four times more greenhouse gas emissions</a> than a regular barrel of oil.<br /><br />
President Obama has been saying and doing all the right things when it comes to climate change lately, penning <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change">a greenhouse gas reduction deal</a> with China and his Environmental Protection Agency (<span class="caps">EPA</span>)<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-to-propose-cutting-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-coal-plants-30percent-by-2030/2014/06/01/f5055d94-e9a8-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html"> proposing new regulations for coal </a>plants that would see sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>However, Obama's recent positive moves on climate will be for naught if the president goes ahead and approves the Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> pipeline project. For what it's worth, I would bet good money that Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> is rejected. </p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px;">3. <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Congress of Denial</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px;">While the rest of the world deals with important issues like the fate of the human race and major disruption of the global atmosphere, the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Congress, which is now completely controlled by the Republicans, is still grappling with understanding (or denying) the basic science. In the most recent elections, the Democratic party <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/us-2014-mid-term-election-results">lost control of the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Senate</a>, and with that we'll see a comeback of the climate deniers running key committees. Most notably, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/james-inhofe">Senator James Inhofe</a> will <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120134/climate-change-denier-james-inhofe-lead-environment-committee">most likely again be chairing</a> the powerful Environment and Public Works Committee. Watch Inhofe, who claims climate change is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated,” call all sorts of hearings around the issue of climate change and embolden like-minded conspiracy theorists and deniers-for-hire. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px;">With 2015 being such an important year, the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Senate will be a circus act with consequences when it comes to the issue of climate change. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">4. Big Coal's Last Stand</span></strong></p>
<p>There is a shake-up underway in the coal industry and while I don't think this most carbon-intensive of fossil fuels is going away any time soon, 2015 will be a decisive year in which coal will either rise from the ashes or continue a course to extinction.</p>
<p>In June 2014, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (<span class="caps">EPA</span>) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-to-propose-cutting-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-coal-plants-30percent-by-2030/2014/06/01/f5055d94-e9a8-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html">announced a set of proposed new regulations</a> that would see the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> coal sector reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2030. Barring any new game-changing technology, these new regulations effectively stop the construction of any new coal-fired power plants in the United States. This also means coal companies just lost a big customer, and will have to look elsewhere to expand their market.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for Big Coal, one of the other big markets for their product, China, is also having second thoughts about expanding its use of coal for energy production. There have been rumblings for quite some time now that coal consumption in China has peaked, and it appears that may in fact be the reality.<br /><br />
With China dealing with civil unrest and bad international headlines over air quality issues, the country recently penned a joint greenhouse gas reduction agreement with the United States and also announced in September that it would soon <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-18/china-to-australia-no-more-dirty-coal">ban the import of coal</a> with high sulfur and ash content.</p>
<p>All of this is hurting the coal industry big time and you need look no further than Peabody Energy, the largest private-sector coal company in the world. In September, Peabody was dropped from the Standard <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Poor's 500 stock index and the company <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=NYSE:BTU">has seen its stock price slide</a> from a high of $72 per share four years ago, to today trading around $7.74. In reaction, Peabody has started an over-the-top new <span class="caps">PR</span> campaign called <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/oct/14/how-big-coal-is-lobbying-g20-leaders-and-trying-to-capture-the-global-poverty-debate">“Advanced Energy for Life”</a> with the intent of softening the bad image of their dirty product and framing it as the savior for developing nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America.</p>
<p>Big coal is wheezing on its own fumes, and unless it successfully finds new markets for its products, 2015 will likely be the start of a death spiral. </p>
<p><strong>5. Down Under and the Great White North</strong></p>
<p>With a collective population of roughly 58 million, Canada and Australia are relatively small countries, but when it comes to the issues of energy and climate change, they play an outsized role on the global stage.</p>
<p>Canada, with its <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/top-10-facts-canada-alberta-oil-sands-information">tar sands deposits</a>, has the third largest proven oil reserves in the world. Australia is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia">fourth largest coal producer</a> in the world, with much of it exported to the Asian and South Asian markets. Both countries also have leaders bent on making their countries into energy superpowers, climate be damned. </p>
<p>Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in his eighth year of power, with a federal election to be called by October 2015 at the latest. There remains a real chance that Harper could be re-elected, bringing with it another four years of inaction on climate change and cheerleading for the expansion of export pipelines and the tar sands. If that isn't bad enough, if he wins another term in office, watch Harper completely regress (if that is possible) on his country's commitments at the <span class="caps">UN</span> negotiating table in Paris in December. </p>
<p>In his second year of power, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbot is making Stephen Harper look like a lightweight when it comes to punching holes in efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Since taking office, Abbott has, among other things, <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/australia-dumps-carbon-price-as-repeal-passes-senate-22018">scrapped Australia's carbon tax</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/federal-government-scraps-climate-commission/4968816">shut down his country's climate commission</a>. At the same time, Abbott has been clear on where he stands on fossil fuels, recently proclaiming that “coal is good for humanity.” </p>
<p>This summer, Harper and Abbott stood together and announced they had formed <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tony-abbott-stephen-harper-take-hard-line-against-carbon-tax-1.2669287">a pact to fight action on climate change</a> and invited the leaders of the United Kingdom, India and New Zealand to join them. None followed, and nothing more has been heard of the Abbott/Harper pro-carbon coalition. What Harper and Abbott are doing may be political suicide. We are no longer in the heyday of climate denial and pro-oil pacts, and the electorate may punish Harper in the 2015 Canadian election for his outright disdain for the issue of climate change. </p>
<p>If the electorate does punish Harper in 2015, Abbott will no doubt be watching and who knows what he will do in response. But what I do know is that the best way to get to a politician is either money or the threat of losing votes. </p>
<p>When I first started working on climate issues, 2015 seemed so distant. At one point, I naively even thought that by 2015 we would have finally dealt with climate change once and for all. But it turns out that when dealing with an issue as big as climate change, there is no “once and for all” solution. Instead, climate change is an issue that will be dealt with through peak moments of big change and flat-lines of political morass. </p>
<p>If we play our cards right, 2015 could be a big, great peak year for climate. </p>
<p><span style="font-size:11px;"><em>Image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/9308488@N05/">Abac077 on Flickr.</a></em></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19456">climate 2015</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19457">UN paris climate negotiations</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/634">James Inhofe</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5139">keystone xl pipeline</a></div></div></div>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 13:00:00 +0000Kevin Grandia8952 at http://www.desmogblog.comCoal Giant Peabody Energy Denies Social Media Poverty Campaign Is Bogushttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/12/02/coal-giant-peabody-denies-social-media-poverty-campaign-bogus
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Peabody_Friends-3-2-500x500.jpg?itok=SxLPg-xs" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>On the fringes of Brisbane’s G20 summit inside the Queensland capital’s grand city hall, Peabody Energy president Glenn Kellow made a remarkable claim.</p>
<p>Almost half a million people in countries across the globe had supported his coal company’s <span class="caps">PR</span> campaign to urge the world to act on “energy poverty”, claimed Kellow. </p>
<p>Kellow was referring to the company’s “Lights On” project run under his firm’s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/27/peabody-burson-marstellar-coal_n_5044962.html">Advanced Energy for Life (<span class="caps">AE</span>fL) campaign</a>.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">AE</span>fL campaign was created with the help of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world’s biggest <span class="caps">PR</span> firms and a specialist in crisis communications. </p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/peabody-president--coo-glenn-kellow-outlines-plan-to-reduce-energy-inequality-drive-economic-growth--advance-environmental-progress-at-global-cafe-282360271.html">press release, Peabody Energy</a> again claimed about “half-million citizens from 48 nations” had “urged G20 leaders” to have a greater focus on energy poverty through its campaign. </p>
<p>Peabody Energy,<span style="letter-spacing: 0.389999985694885px; line-height: 1.5em;"> the world's biggest privately owned coal company, </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">has been the leading voice in the coal industry’s attempts to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/oct/14/how-big-coal-is-lobbying-g20-leaders-and-trying-to-capture-the-global-poverty-debate">hijack the term “energy poverty”</a> for its own ends.</span></p>
<!--break-->
<p>While international agencies including the United Nations World Health Organization and the International Energy Agency agree that more people should have access to electricity and cleaner energy, they also urge action to reduce fossil fuel emissions.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">IEA</span> says there are about 1.3 billion people in the world without adequate access to electricity, the majority of which live in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.</p>
<p>Peabody Energy and other coal industry figures have latched onto the issue to claim the only way to bring the poor out of poverty is to give them access to “cheap” power from their coal. </p>
<p>The “Lights On” project appears to be little more than a name attached to some images and a video posted on the company’s website and social media channels.</p>
<p>But how did Peabody Energy manage to persuade so many people in so many countries to support a campaign with such an obvious corporate self-interest?</p>
<p>Did they get half a million answers on a survey? Did they run a giant petition project? </p>
<p>No. </p>
<p>A Peabody Energy spokesperson told DeSmogBlog that “those supporting the Lights On Project have liked our campaign on our social media channels” adding that “Burson is not involved in our social media campaign, though they and other firms have assisted us with elements of the <span class="caps">AEFL</span> campaign.” </p>
<p>Now questions are being asked about the legitimacy of the company’s campaign with accusations the firm paid online agencies so that people would “like” their campaign — an accusation Peabody Energy now denies. </p>
<p>On <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/21/big-coal-buys-facebook-likes/">EcoWatch</a>, DeSmogBlog contributor Kevin Grandia wrote that Peabody’s campaign looked suspiciously like the roll out of a “pay-per-care” strategy. He wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>With pay-per-care, companies can buy large volumes of “likes” and followers and quickly manufacture the appearance of a worldwide outpouring of support for the product or idea they are trying to sell. Companies pay to make it look like people care.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Grandia pointed out that the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/advancedenergyforlife" target="_blank"><span class="caps">AE</span>fL Facebook</a> page contained many highly critical comments and what appeared to be spam.</p>
<p>Climate campaign group <a href="http://tcktcktck.org/2014/11/big-coal-fakes-social-media-campaign-pressure-g20">TckTckTck</a> has published an analysis of the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/advancedenergyforlife"><span class="caps">AE</span>fL Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/AdvancedEnergy">Twitter</a> accounts.</p>
<p>The group found that both social media channels had seen sudden jumps in followers.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Companies buying likes or twitter followers to create the perception that they or their products are popular is a common, if useless and potentially embarrassing, practice. However, the huge numbers of followers Peabody has gained appear to be bought to give the <span class="caps">AE</span>fL campaign credibility for lobbying, and provide the company social license to talk about poverty issues to sell coal.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Peabody’s campaign has already been <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/08/21/advertising-watchdog-says-peabody-energy-clean-coal-advert-was-misleading">criticised by <span class="caps">UK</span> advertising watchdogs</a> for the “misleading” use of the phrase “clean coal” which the authority said could lead readers to think coal was free from emissions.</p>
<p>So did Peabody Energy actually pay for people to “like” its online campaign so that it could claim to have half a million supporters?</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Peabody Energy spokesperson Beth Sutton said “no”, telling </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">DeSmogBlog its campaign was not “bogus” and the claims of “activist campaigners” were “ridiculous and untrue”. Sutton said:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>It appears they are working hard to create controversy where none exists in an effort to stop a discussion that they don’t agree with.</p>
<p>The success of the campaign demonstrates that there are many like-minded advocates in dozens of nations who want to find policy solutions to alleviate energy poverty.</p>
<p>Peabody directs our social platforms. We work with a variety of firms on our Advanced Energy For Life Campaign.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Peabody Energy also placed a post on its <a href="https://www.facebook.com/advancedenergyforlife/posts/531065070330530" target="_blank"><span class="caps">AE</span>fL Facebook</a> page.</p>
<p><em>Activists questioning our #LightsOn project are misguided <span class="amp">&amp;</span> working to create controversy to distract from real issues. Thanks to all of our followers for expressing the need to raise awareness and support to end energy poverty.</em></p>
<p>On Twitter, the firm said:</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Activists questioning our </span><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LightsOn?src=hash" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">#LightsOn</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> project are misguided <span class="amp">&amp;</span> working to create controversy to distract from real issues.</span></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
— Advanced Energy (@AdvancedEnergy) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdvancedEnergy/status/537691849742626816">November 26, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><p>One Facebook user responded “no one wants coal anymore”.</p>
<p>Facebook user Catherine Phillips <a href="https://www.facebook.com/advancedenergyforlife/posts/531065070330530?comment_id=532206543549716&amp;offset=0&amp;total_comments=17">wrote</a>: “Hi, we just like Your page, get 20 likes for <span class="caps">FREE</span>. S O C L I K E S C O M”, but this comment has since been deleted.</p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/soclikes1.jpg" style="width: 560px; height: 66px; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid;" /></p>
<p>Similar examples can be found in response to <a href="https://twitter.com/AdvancedEnergy/status/537691935935586305">Peabody's tweet</a> as well, such as: <br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202014-12-02%20at%207.47.12%20PM.png" style="width: 560px; height: 160px;" /></p>
<p><br />
Another recent <span class="caps">AE</span>fL post garnered more than 3,000 Likes but a glance through the comments shows little actual support.<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202014-12-02%20at%206.52.50%20PM.png" style="width: 560px; height: 765px;" /> <br /><span style="font-size:11px;"><em>Screen capture by Brendan DeMelle of 7 November <span class="caps">AE</span>fL Facebook post.</em></span></p>
<p>While Peabody staff appear to be monitoring these social media channels and deleting spam and gibberish more regularly now, the number of Likes still doesn't seem to correspond to a large number of substantive comments supporting the coal giant's campaign to sell more coal to alleviate energy poverty.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">You have to wonder how sincere the support really is.</span></p>
<p><em>Main image credit: TckTckTck</em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18382">energy poverty</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18929">glenn kellow</a></div></div></div>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 03:54:03 +0000Graham Readfearn8861 at http://www.desmogblog.comYouth Climate Coalition To Peabody Energy Boss: 'We Don't Want Your Coal'http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/14/youth-climate-coalition-peabody-energy-boss-we-dont-want-your-coal
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/AYCC%20345%20%281%29.jpg?itok=y-HvJVnD" width="200" height="138" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>“Mr Kellow will not be doing any interviews,” came the message into the media room at an unofficial G20 side event in Brisbane earlier this week.</p>
<p>Glenn Kellow is the chief operating officer at Peabody Energy – the world’s biggest privately owned coal company.</p>
<p>The news of Mr Kellow’s media shyness was all the more curious given that his company <a href="http://http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/oct/14/how-big-coal-is-lobbying-g20-leaders-and-trying-to-capture-the-global-poverty-debate" target="_blank">had been the sole main sponsor</a> for the “energy theme” at the <a href="http://choosebrisbane.com/G20-Brisbane/Global-Cafe/Powering-Future-Economies-Energy" target="_blank">Global Café</a> event.</p>
<p>Perhaps Kellow was anticipating a hostile reception over his company’s spearheading of the coal industry’s new message that the climate changing fossil fuel is the answer to global poverty?</p>
<p>If this was his expectation, then it came true – if only for a few fleeting seconds – when a group of seven campaigners from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (<span class="caps">AYCC</span>) rose to their feet in the middle of his keynote speech inside the lavish auditorium of the Brisbane City Hall.</p>
<p>“Peabody: we don’t want you coal. You don’t belong at the G20,” <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/nov/13/g20-reality-bites-for-coal-and-climate-change" target="_blank">came the bellowing shouts</a>, before the group joined hands to walk out.</p>
<p>Outside, the protestors rode bikes outside the forum entrance with billboards that spoofed Peabody Energy’s “Advanced Energy for Life” campaign developed with the help of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world’s biggest <span class="caps">PR</span> firms who previously worked with the tobacco industry.</p>
<p>“Climate Impacts for Life – Peabody Coal… the only kind of ‘Advanced Energy’ is Renewable Energy,” the billboards read. </p>
<!--break-->
<p>Still not finished, the <span class="caps">AYCC</span> also handed out copies of an open letter, co-signed by youth climate groups from 30 countries, asking G20 leaders to ignore <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/oct/14/how-big-coal-is-lobbying-g20-leaders-and-trying-to-capture-the-global-poverty-debate">the lobbying of Peabody and other coal interests</a>.</p>
<p>As DeSmogBlog has reported, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/nov/13/g20-reality-bites-for-coal-and-climate-change">claims from Peabody Energy and others</a> that the world’s poorest countries should be pulled from poverty on the back of coal are coming under increasing scrutiny.</p>
<p>Australia’s <a href="http://www.mineralscouncil.com.au/file_upload/files/media_releases/NO_ESCAPE_FROM_POVERTY_WITHOUT_LOW_COST_ENERGY__7_Nov_2014.pdf">Minerals Council of Australia</a>, the peak industry group representing the coal industry, said that any suggestion that the industry was using “energy poverty” as “industry propaganda” were “as inaccurate as they were offensive”.</p>
<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WFgbvCNqSx4" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p>Later on at the Peabody-sponsored event Dr <a href="http://desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg" target="_blank">Bjorn Lomborg</a>, Danish political scientists and founder of the <span class="caps">US</span>-registered Copenhagen Consensus Center think tank, echoed the claims from Kellow that fossil fuels were the tool to lift the world’s poor – particularly in sub-Saharan Africa – out of poverty.</p>
<p>Both Kellow and Lomborg relied on projections from the International Energy Agency to claim that it was inevitable that developing countries would burn more coal.</p>
<p>While some projections from the International Energy Agency do find this, the figures also come with a climate health warning.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">IEA</span> also states that the projections cited by Peabody and Lomborg are in line with a scenario that would deliver between 3C and 6C of global warming for Africa by the end of this century.</p>
<p>A new <span class="caps">IEA</span> <a href="http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/africa-energy-outlook.html">Africa Energy Outlook</a> report states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The nature and scale of the challenge is subject to a broad range of uncertainty, but existing climate models suggest that, in scenarios broadly consistent with the outcomes of the New Policies Scenario, annual average temperatures across the continent will rise between 3 °C and 6 °C by 2100, compared to the 1986-2005 average (<span class="caps">IPCC</span>, 2014). The African continent, already prone to weather extremes, would be affected in several ways, including droughts in some areas, extreme precipitation in others and rising sea-levels affecting coastal areas (where many large populations are based and substantial components of economic output are concentrated).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a later press conference, I asked Dr Lomborg how much of the poverty reduction he hoped could be achieved would be wiped out by climate change impacts in the region 4C. </p>
<p>He said that “you would have to run the models” but they were “very crude in a number of different ways”. He said while “obviously, you could get some numbers out of the models, they really won’t tell you anything”.</p>
<p>With a future which even Lomborg seems willing to admit is extremely unpredictable, advocating for fossil fuels for the world’s poorest seems like a high stakes gamble. </p>
<p><em style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Photo credit: <span class="caps">AYCC</span></em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18382">energy poverty</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/707">bjorn lomborg</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18624">brisbane</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5896">G20</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18928">global cafe</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18929">glenn kellow</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18930">aycc</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18931">australian youth climate coalition</a></div></div></div>Sat, 15 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0000Graham Readfearn8783 at http://www.desmogblog.comCoal Companies Avoid Coal When Funding Energy Poverty Projects In Poorest Countries, Report Findshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/12/coal-companies-avoid-coal-when-funding-energy-poverty-projects-poorest-countries-report-finds
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/tai%20report%20cover.jpg?itok=MUlNuv7n" width="200" height="169" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>When the coal industry says its product is the only way the world’s poor can lift themselves from poverty, some people in Australia believe them.</p>
<p>Chief among the industry’s promoters has been the country’s Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who has said that coal is “good for humanity” and that the energy source and main driver of climate change shouldn’t be “demonised”.</p>
<p>But a new report from progressive think tank <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/" target="_blank">The Australia Institute</a> (<span class="caps">TAI</span>) has put a looking glass up to the industry’s claims to a glistening future and found what it claims is little more than self-serving industry spin.</p>
<p>The industry has been pushing its supposed concerns for “energy poverty” in media statements, columns, industry presentations, reports and advertising campaigns this year.</p>
<p>According to the International Energy Agency, there are about 1.3 billion in the world without access to electricity and about 2.7 billion without access to clean cooking and heating. Almost all these people live in rural areas in either sub-Saharan Africa or Asia.</p>
<p>The coal industry – led by a <span class="caps">PR</span> campaign from the world’s biggest private-sector coal company, Peabody Energy – has been <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2014/10/28/how-bill-gates-and-peabody-energy-share-vision-coal-powered-future-through-views-bjorn-lomborg" target="_blank">using the energy poverty issue as way to lobby investors and world leaders</a>.</p>
<p>But the <span class="caps">TAI</span> report – <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/content/all-talk-no-action-coal-industry-and-energy-poverty" target="_blank">All Talk, No Action</a> – finds that the industry’s claim are largely misrepresenting the current economic climate and forecasts for the future.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>In the company’s 2013 corporate social responsibility report Greg Boyce, Peabody Energy’s <span class="caps">CEO</span>, wrote: “Peabody believes energy poverty is a human tragedy and a global environmental crisis.”</p>
<p>Yet intriguingly, when <span class="caps">TAI</span> asked Peabody and other coal groups if they were actually giving any money to support energy poverty projects, they found that none of the coal companies were actually using coal projects to solve energy poverty.</p>
<p>Rather, none of the coal companies who were supporting projects in developing countries – including Rio Tinto, <span class="caps">BHP</span> Billiton, Anglo American and Banpu - were actually using coal, and were mostly supporting projects based on renewables.</p>
<p>Peabody Energy’s entire charitable giving amounted to just $5 million – or, as the report points out – just 0.07 per cent of the company’s revenue last year, none of which went to on-the-ground projects. The <span class="caps">TAI</span> report notes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Contradicting Peabody’s claims that coal is the most useful fuel for addressing energy poverty, no programs supported by coal companies use coal.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="caps">TAI</span> economist and lead author of the report, Rod Campbell, told DeSmogBlog:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I admit I was surprised at the level of Peabody’s hypocrisy. I did think that what the company promotes through its Advanced Energy for Life website was self-serving, but I was surprised going through their reports to find out how little they do actually give to charity. Other coal companies do support energy poverty projects but I didn’t think that Peabody Energy could talk so loud and yet do so little.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report also examines key claims made by the industry in its reports, presentations, media releases and columns.</p>
<p>Examining the industry’s claims that its product is “cheap” and therefore the best option for poorer countries, the <span class="caps">TAI</span> report found: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Even in providing large scale electricity generation to central grids, coal’s cost advantages are rapidly declining. The costs of renewable technologies such as solar and wind are declining as technology improves and economies of scale develop in manufacturing and installation. Conversely, the costs of generating electricity from coal are increasing due to increasing coal prices, capital costs and regulations on greenhouse gas and other emissions.…</p>
<p>In both India and China, solar and wind are forecast to be cheaper than coal between 2020 and 2025.</p>
<p>There is little potential for coal to directly assist with energy poverty alleviation projects involving household-scale technologies or mini-grid and off-grid systems. Central electricity grids will be expanded to provide electricity to urban middle classes, but often these expansions fail to address energy poverty.</p>
<p>Even generating for central grids at a utility scale, coal is becoming more expensive than large scale renewables in key markets such as India and China.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report examined some of the presentations which Peabody Energy has made to G20 meetings and presentations to investors.</p>
<p>One Peabody Energy chart sourced the International Energy Agency to make a claim that “global coal demand” would rise 48 per cent between now and 2030.</p>
<p>But the institute’s report found that Peabody had based its figure on the <span class="caps">IEA</span>’s “current policies” projections, ignoring two other projections.</p>
<p>Those projections look at coal demand in the context of what countries have pledged to do on emissions, which would see coal demand rise by only 17 per cent by 2035. </p>
<p>A third scenario used by the <span class="caps">IEA</span> presumes that the world will meet a commitment to keep global warming below 2C and stabilize the concentration of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million.</p>
<p>This, the institute says, will see coal demand drop by about 33 per cent over the coming two decades.</p>
<p>Campbell’s report also attacks claims made by Peabody and other coal industry figures that coal is responsible for economic growth and improvements in life expectancy. The report says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As countries can afford to use less coal, they do so, contradicting the suggestion that the world “turns to coal to improve quality of life”. In fact, countries “turn away” from coal as soon as they can.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report points out that when Peabody Energy talks about how its <span class="caps">US</span> power plants have made big cuts on “emissions”, the company is not talking about carbon dioxide emissions. </p>
<p>Rather, Peabody is referencing emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and that these cuts were largely forced on power plant owners through government regulation.</p>
<p>The report says that while developing countries generally have used more coal as their economies have grown, generally once countries become richer their coal use actually stagnates.</p>
<p>Peabody Energy and Australia’s peak mining industry group Minerals Council of Australia have both responded to the report along with other recent criticisms of its use of the energy poverty issue as a lobbying tool.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.mineralscouncil.com.au/file_upload/files/media_releases/NO_ESCAPE_FROM_POVERTY_WITHOUT_LOW_COST_ENERGY__7_Nov_2014.pdf" target="_blank">Minerals Council said</a> claims the industry was using the issue to push “resources industry propaganda” were “as inaccurate as they are offensive”. A statement added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The bottom line is that there is no escape from extreme poverty without access to cheap energy and the cheapest, fastest way to provide that electricity is through cheap, modern, lower emissions coal generation power.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Vic Svec, Peabody Energy’s senior vice president of global investor and corporate relations, told <a href="https://www2.snl.com/Interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-29784365-11303" target="_blank">business analysts <span class="caps">SNL</span></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Coal is at the heart of eradicating energy poverty, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise when world leaders, agencies and analysts all agree that it has been — and will be — a major positive force. Coal lifted 650 million Chinese citizens from poverty since 1990 at a time when China's <span class="caps">GDP</span> soared 850% and use of coal-fueled power increased eight-fold. In fact, the International Energy Agency called China's dramatic transformation an 'economic miracle.</p>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6878">Tony Abbott</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18849">advanced energy for life</a></div></div></div>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:40:00 +0000Graham Readfearn8764 at http://www.desmogblog.comPeabody Energy Goes On Offense With New PR Campaign Designed To Sell Same Old Dirty Coalhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/11/peabody-energy-goes-offense-new-pr-campaign-designed-sell-same-old-dirty-coal
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_191351435.jpg?itok=Wer2h8el" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Despite what you may have heard about the <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/king-coal-dying-slow-death-america?paging=off&amp;current_page=1#bookmark" target="_blank">death of the coal industry</a>, Peabody Energy is ramping up mining activities and going on the offensive, pushing “clean coal” on the world’s poor with a disingenuous but aggressive <span class="caps">PR</span> campaign. And for good reason: Peabody has got to sell the coal from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/10/-sp-the-real-story-of-us-coal-inside-the-worlds-biggest-coal-mine" target="_blank">the world's largest coal mine</a> to someone.<br /><br />
Speculation is rife that the new <span class="caps">GOP</span>-led Senate will join with its <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/05/climate-deniers-congress-take-3-5-times-much-money-dirty-energy-interests" target="_blank">similarly fossil fuel-beholden</a> House colleagues to usher in a new era of coal. Peabody, the world’s largest privately held coal company, isn’t waiting around to find out.<br /><br />
The company has teamed with public relations firm Burson-Marsteller—the notorious <span class="caps">PR</span> giant that helped Big Tobacco attack and distort scientific evidence of the dangers of smoking tobacco—to launch Advanced Energy for Life, a desperate attempt to shift the discussion around coal away from its deleterious effects on health and massive contributions to climate change and instead posit the fossil fuel as a solution to global poverty.<br /><br />
The aim of this <span class="caps">PR</span> offensive, according to a piece by freelance journalist Dan Zegart and former DeSmog managing editor Kevin Grandia (<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/the-fossil-fuel-resistance-meet-the-new-green-heroes-20130411/kevin-grandia-the-muckraker-19691231" target="_blank">one of <em>Rolling Stone</em>’s “Green Heroes,”</a> and deservedly so), the reason for Peabody’s charm offensive is simple: there’s money to be made selling coal in Asian markets, and Peabody aims to make it—as long as initiatives to combat global warming emissions don’t intervene. Which makes Burson-Marsteller the perfect ally:</p>
<blockquote>
Burson-Marsteller, which has a long history of creating front groups to rehabilitate the images of corporate wrongdoers, helped Philip Morris, maker of Marlboro, tackle the Asian market, where Burson fought anti-smoking regulations and developed crisis drills for Philip Morris personnel in Hong Kong on how to handle adverse scientific reports.<br />
</blockquote>
<p>As the <span class="caps">US</span> produces a glut of cheap natural gas, the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule" target="_blank">Clean Power Plan</a> seeks to set emissions standards that would make building new coal-fired power plants all but impossible impossible, and the domestic demand for coal drops, Peabody’s value as a company has dropped as well, from $20 billion to just $3.7 billion in the space of three years. The company is in desperate need of new business if it’s to even stay afloat.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><br />
China has emerged as an especially important market for Peabody. But already there are signs that China may be realizing what a Faustian bargain coal really is. Coal use in the country <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/22/chinas-coal-use-falls-for-first-time-this-century-analysis-suggests" target="_blank">dropped for the first time this century</a> after doubling in just the past decade. And <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/09/23/china-create-national-cap-and-trade-program-obama-admin-must-bypass-u-s-senate-climate" target="_blank">China recently announced it was creating a national cap and trade program</a> to lower its greenhouse gas emissions.<br /><br />
This is where Burson-Marsteller and Advanced Energy for Life <span class="caps">PR</span> campaign come in.<br /><br />
“Energy poverty. It’s the world’s number one human and environmental crisis,” an Advanced Energy for Life ad reads. And the solution to this crisis? That mythical fuel “clean coal,” naturally.<br /><br />
The <span class="caps">UK</span>’s Advertising Standards Authority stepped in and stopped Peabody and Burson-Marsteller from using the term “clean coal” in the ad, because in addition to the carbon pollution cooking our climate, coal is also responsible for <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/coal-power-industry-united-states-facts" target="_blank">mercury pollution and acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide pollution</a>. But it was the stunning hypocrisy of <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/20/3473654/clean-coal-misleading-public/" target="_blank">Peabody disguising its sales pitch as some kind of altruistic attempt to alleviate global poverty</a> that caused the World Wildlife Fund to bring a case before the <span class="caps">UK</span>’s <span class="caps">ASA</span> in the first place.<br /><br />
Peabody was undeterred by the <span class="caps">ASA</span>’s adverse ruling, even crowing <a href="http://www.peabodyenergy.com/Investor-News-Release-Details.aspx?nr=844" target="_blank">in a press release</a> that its “right to assert its opinion that global energy poverty – which impacts half the world's population – is the number one human and environmental crisis for society today” had been upheld.<br /><br />
The company’s intent with the <span class="caps">PR</span> blitz is obvious: “By stalling carbon limits, say critics, Peabody, an American company, hopes to buy itself time to shift from selling domestic coal here in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> to exporting American coal to Asia or mining Asian and Australian coal and selling it abroad,” Zegart and Grandia write.<br /><br />
Peabody is currently in the process of exploiting the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/10/-sp-the-real-story-of-us-coal-inside-the-worlds-biggest-coal-mine" target="_blank">largest coal mine in the world</a>, the North Antelope Rochelle mine in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. The mine is as big as Washington, D.C., some 100 square miles, and contains an estimated 3 billion tonnes of coal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/10/-sp-the-real-story-of-us-coal-inside-the-worlds-biggest-coal-mine" target="_blank">According to the Guardian</a>, “It would take Peabody 25 or 30 years to mine it all.” And that is exactly what Peabody plans to do. “On an average day, 21 long freight trains full of coal leave North Antelope Rochelle bound for 100 power plants across the country. But the company says that’s still not enough.”<br /><br />
President Obama's “all of the above” energy strategy has led to coal exports growing to some 100 million tonnes per year over the past three years. These exports are seen as a key lifeline for the ailing coal industry, as the <span class="caps">EPA</span>'s Clean Power Plan will, for the first time, place limits on carbon emissions from power plants, further imperiling the domestic demand for coal.<br /><br />
Plus, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/09/22/photos-record-breaking-crowd-400K-marches-climate-justice-new-york" target="_blank">demands for climate action are growing louder</a> and louder, and the true costs of the mining process are getting attention too. <span class="caps">LJ</span> Turner, a Wyoming rancher who has lost dozens of heads of cattle to pneumonia exacerbated by dust from Peabody’s mine, told the Guardian:</p>
<blockquote>
We are making a national sacrifice out of this region. Peabody coal and other coal companies want to keep on mining, and mine this country out and leave it as a sacrifice and they want to do it for their bottom line. It’s not for the United States. They want to sell it overseas, and I want to see that stopped.</blockquote>
<p>This, of course, is precisely what Peabody’s Advanced Energy for Life <span class="caps">PR</span> campaign seeks to distract our attention from: The very real consequences that mining and burning coal are having on people right now, and will continue to have if we don’t rein in global warming emissions, of which coal is the single largest contributor.<br /><br />
Far from a solution to global poverty, coal will make climate change worse and thus <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-poor-suffer-most-un-report" target="_blank">disproportionately impact the lives of people living in poverty</a>, those who have done the least to contribute to the problem and are the least equipped to deal with the consequences of rising sea levels, more and more extreme weather events, and lower crop yields.<br /><br />
But the official position of Peabody, conveniently enough, is that none of that is a result of our use of coal because climate change is not manmade.<br /><br />
As <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/10/-sp-the-real-story-of-us-coal-inside-the-worlds-biggest-coal-mine" target="_blank">the Guardian has concluded</a>: “Peabody’s official position on climate science is divorced from scientific reality. But their grasp of the politics of coal clearly is not.”</p>
<p style="font-size:9px"><em>Image Credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-191351435/stock-photo-dramatic-sunset-over-coal-power-plant.html?src=A_MUb2D7XX2P_-KhZl3qZA-1-10" target="_blank">Kodda / Shutterstock.com</a></em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16207">burson-marsteller</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2151">clean coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7923">Wyoming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/761">china</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3602">mining</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1976">emissions</a></div></div></div>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:00:00 +0000Mike Gaworecki8758 at http://www.desmogblog.comHow Bill Gates and Peabody Energy Share Vision For Coal Powered Future Through Views of Bjorn Lomborghttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/28/how-bill-gates-and-peabody-energy-share-vision-coal-powered-future-through-views-bjorn-lomborg
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/lomborg%20plug%20coal.jpg?itok=6DQKneo0" width="200" height="138" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">No doubt a few eyebrows were raised and possibly some palms smashed against faces earlier this year when the richest person on the planet came out in qualified support of policies to burn massive amounts of coal in the developing world.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In June, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates took to his </span><a href="http://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Two-Videos-Illuminate-Energy-Poverty-Bjorn-Lomborg" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">GatesNotes</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> blog to promote the views of Danish political scientist Dr <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg">Bjorn Lomborg</a>.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Gates opined that “<a href="http://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Two-Videos-Illuminate-Energy-Poverty-Bjorn-Lomborg">as we push to get serious about confronting climate change</a>” it was wrong for rich countries to tell developing countries that they should cut back on burning fossil fuels. He wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">For one thing, poor countries represent a small part of the carbon-emissions problem. And they desperately need cheap sources of energy now to fuel the economic growth that lifts families out of poverty. They can’t afford today’s expensive clean energy solutions, and we can’t expect them wait for the technology to get cheaper.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Gates urged people to consider the view of Lomborg and his think tank, the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center">Copenhagen Consensus Center</a>. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Alongside the blog post were two “GatesNotes” branded videos where Lomborg presented his arguments. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In the videos Lomborg said it was “hypocritical” for the developed world to try and deny poor countries access to fossil fuels when so much of the developed world is still fueled on them. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Lomborg also linked the issue of reducing the impacts of indoor air pollution to increasing use of fossil fuels. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In the video, Lomborg said:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The solution to indoor air pollution is very, very simple. It’s getting people access to modern energy and typically that’s electricity and that’s going to mean fossil fuels for those three billion people who don’t have access. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">We have a very clear moral imperative to make sure that people don’t cook with dirty fuels and make sure those people get out of poverty and have a decent life.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/v15q6M_z13Q?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/en/" target="_blank">World Health Organization</a> says indoor air pollution caused by the burning of fuels like wood, dung and coal (Lomborg didn’t mention coal) kills about four million people a year.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">While Lomborg argued that the “simple” solution to indoor air pollution is access to coal-powered electricity, the more immediate solution is access to cleaner-burning cooking stoves, according to the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Radha Muthia, the executive director of the alliance, </span><a href="http://www.cleancookstoves.org/media-and-events/media/energy-needs-of-the-worlds.html" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">wrote to the New York Times</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> in December last year after the newspaper had published a column where </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/the-poor-need-cheap-fossil-fuels.html" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">Lomborg had again argued</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> that while more efficient cooking stoves “could help” what the world really needed were “low cost fossil fuels” – chiefly, coal.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Muthia wrote that “fossil fuels are not the only solution” and that the “stakes are too high” to rest on Lomborg’s assumption.</span></p>
<!--break-->
<h3>
Lomborg the Contrarian Favourite</h3>
<p>Lomborg is a favourite for climate science contrarians and deniers because he has consistently claimed that the economic impacts of human-caused climate change are positive and will remain so until towards the end of this century.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">As I have written in </span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/dec/06/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-poor-countries-need-fossil-fuels" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The Guardian</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, in my view Lomborg manages to sustain this position by low-balling estimates of climate impacts and underplaying the disproportionately negative effects of climate change on poor countries.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">But DeSmogBlog has discovered that Bill Gates’ support for Lomborg likely extends beyond a qualified endorsement on a blog and the production of two slick videos. What's more, Gates now curiously joins America's biggest coal company, Peabody Energy, on a list of those happy to provide a forum for Lomborg's controversial and risky view of the future. </span></p>
<h3>
New Venture Fund</h3>
<p>The New Venture Fund is a Washington <span class="caps">DC</span>-based charity that works with donors to fund and create major projects “to realize social and environmental change”.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">An <span class="caps">NVF</span> associate confirmed to DeSmogBlog that the fund had donated $250,000 in 2014 to the Copenhagen Consensus Center’s Post-2015 Consensus Project.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave $10.6 million to the New Venture Fund (<span class="caps">NVF</span>) in 2014 for “global policy and advocacy” projects and many millions more for education projects.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The Gates Foundation has confirmed to DeSmogBlog that Lomborg had applied to the organisation for funds and that the foundation had referred Lomborg on to the New Venture Fund.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">A Gates foundation spokesperson said: “The foundation provides New Venture Fund with guidelines, and New Venture Fund makes all funding decisions for individual grant applications that they receive. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>We can confirm that Dr. Lomborg was referred by the foundation to <span class="caps">NVF</span>. Any subsequent decision to fund Dr. Lomborg or the Copenhagen Consensus Center would have been made by <span class="caps">NVF</span>.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In my opinion, the fact that Lomborg went to the <span class="caps">NVF</span> with a referral under his arm from the foundation of the world’s richest person would surely have held some sway, especially when considering how the Gates Foundation is one of <span class="caps">NVF</span>'s major benefactors.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">A previous <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center">DeSmogBlog report into the funding of Lomborg’s think tank</a> found only a small slice of its income could be traced by searching <span class="caps">US</span> tax forms. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">DeSmogBlog</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> found that of the $4.3 million of donations accepted since the <span class="caps">CCC</span> was registered in the <span class="caps">US</span> in 2008, only about $520,000 was publicly declared.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">CCC</span> says it does not accept money from the fossil fuel industry and that donations do not influence its research. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">CCC</span> has carried out several projects where it has ranked global issues in order of priority and has consistently placed efforts to cut fossil fuel emissions close to the bottom.</span></p>
<p>The <span class="caps">CCC</span>’s <a href="http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus">Post-2015 Consensus</a> project, which benefitted from the <span class="caps">NVF</span> grant, has already begun to release reports on some of the major global issues – including climate change and energy. </p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The project is focused on influencing the development of the United Nation’s next set of goals to replace the Millennium Development Goals which run out next year and, by extension, will influence the destination of billions of dollars in aid money over the coming decades.</span></p>
<p>On energy, the <span class="caps">CCC</span> says that a goal to double the amount of renewable energy being used around the world is “ineffective” but does advocate for the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies.</p>
<p>On climate change, the <a href="http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com//publication/post-2015-consensus-climate-change-assessment-galiana">Copenhagen Center analysis</a> essentially repeats a long-held view from Lomborg that the only money worth spending on climate is in research and development on “green energy” to make it cheaper. (<a href="http://www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&amp;PriMenuID=36&amp;CatID=141&amp;SubcatID=277" target="_blank">Analysts point out that existing renewable energy technologies</a> have been on a rapid cost reduction curve for many years.)</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">CCC</span>’s climate analysis says any targets focused on cutting emissions or reducing the amount of greenhouse gases per unit of economic output (carbon intensity) are also ineffective. Money should be spent on ways to adapt to the impacts of climate change instead, it says.</p>
<h3>
Peabody Energy and Energy Poverty</h3>
<p>Lomborg’s statements on energy poverty cover similar ground to those being pushed by Peabody Energy, America’s largest coal company, in its “Advanced Energy for Life” campaign.</p>
<p>The campaign, developed by <span class="caps">PR</span> company Burson-Marsteller, is an attempt by Peabody to hijack the real issue of energy poverty in the developing world in the interests of selling more coal.</p>
<p>Peabody has been using its <span class="caps">PR</span> strategy to try and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/oct/14/how-big-coal-is-lobbying-g20-leaders-and-trying-to-capture-the-global-poverty-debate" target="_blank">influence upcoming G20 talks</a> in Brisbane in November. <br /><br /><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Bjorn Lomborg will be flying to Brisbane to appear at a Peabody Energy-sponsored event on November 12, just three days before world leaders gather in the city for the G20 leaders summit.</span></p>
<p>The “Global Café” event – organised by the city’s promotional arm Brisbane Marketing – is tagged as a look at “Powering Future Economies” and has Peabody as its sole main sponsor.</p>
<p>Yet neither Brisbane Marketing, the Copenhagen Consensus Center or Peabody itself was willing to say if the coal company had made a request for Lomborg to attend.</p>
<p>A Brisbane Marketing spokesperson told DeSmogBlog it was “not appropriate” to comment on who referred individual speakers, adding: “Brisbane Marketing sought speaker recommendations from a wide group of experts and stakeholders including event sponsors. All speakers have been judged on their merits and the contribution they will be able to make to the debate at the Global Cafe.”</p>
<p>A Peabody Energy spokesperson also declined to state how much the coal company had paid to sponsor the event or if it had any role in either recommending or requesting that Dr Lomborg appear.</p>
<p>The spokesperson added: “Peabody looks forward to a dialogue about the urgent need to address energy poverty at a unique thought leadership event in our Australian headquarters city. As a sponsor of the event, Peabody is indirectly sponsoring a broad range of speakers and would expect our funding to support a variety of views.”</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">DeSmogBlog asked the Copenhagen Consensus Center if Peabody had requested Lomborg’s attendance.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Roland Mathiasson , Executive Vice President at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, said the think tank “receives 100s of requests for speaking engagements for Dr Lomborg from different speaking agencies, universities and conference organizers all over the world,” but the center “does not discriminate between organizers, and their sponsors”.</span></p>
<p>He said a standard speaking engagement contract stated that Lomborg's message “will in no way be changed or modified”.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">He said the center was paying Lomborg’s expenses but did not respond when DeSmogBlog asked if Lomborg or the center would receive a fee for his appearance.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Appearing alongside Lomborg will be John Connor, <span class="caps">CEO</span> of The Climate Institute which is notably part of a </span><a href="http://www.engonetwork.org/" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">group of <span class="caps">NGO</span>s</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> advocating for more investment and development of carbon capture and storage technologies.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Connor told DeSmogBlog that he considers Peabody’s “energy poverty” campaign to be an “extremely thin veneer” that lacks any credible evidence.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">As for Bill Gates, the world’s richest man now curiously stands alongside America’s biggest coal company as a supporter of the views of Bjorn Lomborg that a key to lifting the world’s poorest from poverty is through burning coal. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">But with coal as the world’s biggest contributor to human-caused climate change, it seems to be an extraordinarily high stakes game with the world's poorest being turned into gambling chips.</span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/707">bjorn lomborg</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1570">bill gates</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2540">desmogblog</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18382">energy poverty</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18624">brisbane</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5896">G20</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2140">Copenhagen Consensus Center</a></div></div></div>Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:21:00 +0000Graham Readfearn8706 at http://www.desmogblog.comAustralian Treasurer Joe Hockey Latest Minister To Tout Coal Industry "Energy Poverty" Spinhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/15/australian-treasurer-joe-hockey-latest-minister-tout-coal-industry-energy-poverty-spin
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/hockey%20hardtalk.jpg?itok=RQUCQ8EE" width="200" height="113" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Australia's Treasurer Joe Hockey barely missed a beat when challenged to justify the country's massive fossil fuel export industry and bottom-dwelling record for domestic greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>“We are exporting coal so that nations can lift their people out of poverty,” the Liberal Treasurer <a href="http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/transcript/107-2014/" target="_blank">told the journalist Stephen Sackur</a> on the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028nwsf" target="_blank"><span class="caps">BBC</span>'s <span class="caps">HARDT</span>alk</a> interview program.</p>
<p>Hockey's argument should be recognised for what it is - a line straight out of the coal industry's newest campaign playbook.</p>
<p>As I wrote earlier this week on <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/oct/14/how-big-coal-is-lobbying-g20-leaders-and-trying-to-capture-the-global-poverty-debate" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, the coal industry is attempting to hijack the issue of “energy poverty” by claiming the only way that the world's poorest can prosper is by purchasing and then burning more of their product.</p>
<div>
The United Nations Environment Programme wouldn't agree. In a <a href="http://www.unep.org/roa/amcen/docs/AMCEN_Events/climate-change/2ndExtra_15Dec/FACT_SHEET_CC_Africa.pdf" target="_blank">summary report of climate change impacts</a>, <span class="caps">UNEP</span> says: “In Africa and other developing regions of the world, climate change is a threat to economic growth (due to <span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">changes in natural systems and resources), long-term prosperity, as well as the survival of already </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">vulnerable populations.” </span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The latest <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the impacts of climate change</a> found climate change would “exacerbate multidimensional poverty” in most developing countries and create “new poverty pockets” in both rich and poor countries.</span></div>
<!--break-->
<div>
<br /><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/overview#1" target="_blank">World Bank</a> says: “</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Climate change is a fundamental threat to development in our lifetime. If we do not confront climate change, we will not end poverty.”</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">America's biggest coal company, Peabody Energy, has been leading the public relations push on “energy poverty” with its “Advanced Energy for Life” <span class="caps">PR</span> campaign with </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/08/21/advertising-watchdog-says-peabody-energy-clean-coal-advert-was-misleading" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">press advertising</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> and online video campaigns.</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<p>The company even managed to secure a presentation to a G20 meeting in Brisbane in August. One academic who witnessed the Peabody Energy G20 presentation, Dr Matthew Dornan, of the Australian National University, described it is as “self serving”, “disingenuous” and “not backed by evidence”. Dornan told me:</p>
<blockquote>
I was not impressed. The presentation conflated the issue of energy poverty - on which the workshop was focused - with promotion of the coal industry.</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Speaking of “promotion of the coal industry” Joe Hockey becomes the third high profile Australian politician to use the coal industry's supposed concern for the world's poor in an interview in recent days.</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Prime Minister Tony Abbott opened a coal mine in Queensland earlier this week, where he told reporters that “</span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/tony-abbott-says-coal-is-good-for-humanity-while-opening-mine" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">coal is good for humanity</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">” while enthusing that the opening was “a great day for the world”. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Environment minister Greg Hunt was a little more circumspect, telling <span class="caps">ABC</span> Radio National that the world had “two enormous challenges” - one was to bring down emissions, but the other was to “bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty” with “electricity and gas” being fundamental. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Hunt has </span><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/08/18/4067593.htm" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">previously claimed </a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">that if he had refused to approve coal export projects in Queensland this would be “condemning people to poverty”. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">During the <span class="caps">HARDT</span>alk interview, Hockey rebuffed Sackur's use of </span><a href="http://www.oecd.org/" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank"><span class="caps">OECD</span></a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> statistics which show Australia is the worst emitter of greenhouse gases per person among the members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.</span></p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ghg%20per%20capita%20OECD.jpg" style="width: 420px; height: 258px; float: left; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; margin: 5px;" /></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Hockey said the statistics (showing Australians emit 24 tonnes of greenhouse gases per person ahead of Luxembourg's 22.3t and the <span class="caps">US</span> at 20.6t), were a “falsehood” because they did “not properly reflect” Australia's role as a major exporter of coal and gas. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">OECD</span> statistics reflect emissions caused within country borders and for Australia, the bulk of this comes from the fossil fuels burned in power stations (52 per cent) and fossil fuels burned in vehicles (16 per cent). </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The other major contributor is agriculture (16 per cent). Regardless of whether Australia exports lots of coal and gas, its own emissions footprint is high mainly because of a continued reliance on fossil fuels for energy. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">So what about all the fossil fuels Australia exports? A 2013 study in the journal </span><a href="http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/851/2013/bg-10-851-2013.html" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">Biogeosciences</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> found that the emissions from Australia's exported coal and gas are roughly double the emissions from the fossil fuels Australia burns at home. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">What Treasurer Hockey is actually demonstrating is that Australia is not only a greenhouse gas glutton domestically, but also a major contributor internationally. Thanks for clearing that up, Joe.</span></p>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="700" scrolling="no" src="http://emp.bbc.co.uk/emp/embed/smpEmbed.html?playlist=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fiplayer%2Fplaylist%2Fp028nwsf&amp;title=HARDtalk%3A%20Joe%20Hockey%3A%20'No%20carbon%20tax%20for%20Australia'&amp;product=iplayer" width="560"></iframe></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18381">joe hockey</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/australia">Australia</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18382">energy poverty</a></div></div></div>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:28:50 +0000Graham Readfearn8646 at http://www.desmogblog.comPeabody Energy Booted From S&P 500, King Coal on the Defensive as Market Signals Industry Declinehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/09/23/peabody-booted-sp-500-king-coal-defensive
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_63535978.jpg?itok=AHtm_Qk4" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>King Coal and industry multinational <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy (<span class="caps">BTU</span>)</a> have taken a beating in the markets lately, and it has some executives in the dirty energy industry <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-22/coal-mogul-murray-says-more-bankruptcies-probable">freaking out</a>. </p>
<p>On September 19, <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/peabody-energy-to-be-removed-from-s-p-index/article_601ff555-f353-5df4-8f02-6ecae78e79d4.html">Dow Jones removed Peabody Energy from its <span class="caps">S&amp;P</span> 500 index</a>, considered a list of the premier <span class="caps">U.S.</span> stocks for investors. The <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/peabody-energy-to-be-removed-from-s-p-index/article_601ff555-f353-5df4-8f02-6ecae78e79d4.html" style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px; line-height: 1.5em;">St. Louis Post-Dispatch</a> cited the downward trajectory of the company's market capitalization as the rationale behind <span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px; line-height: 1.5em;">the ouster of Peabody from the <span class="caps">S&amp;P</span> 500 index. Peabody will now join the <span class="caps">JV</span> leagues in the <span class="caps">S&amp;P</span> MidCap 400.</span></p>
<p>Peabody's downfall symbolizes ongoing market trends within the coal industry overall.</p>
<p>“The total market value of publicly traded <span class="caps">U.S.</span> coal companies has rebounded slightly in recent months, but remains nearly 63% lower than a total of the same companies at a near-term coal market peak in April 2011,” <a href="https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-27853777-11046">explained <span class="caps">SNL</span> Energy</a> in April. </p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“A perfect storm of factors, including new federal regulations impacting coal-burning power plants, cheap competing fuels, railroad service issues and weak global markets has kept pressure on a number of coal operators since the industry's 2011 near-term peak.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">A new study published this week by the <a href="http://www.carbontracker.org/">Carbon Tracker Initiative</a> </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.389999985694885px; line-height: 1.5em;">— </span><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110813073306/http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Full-rev2.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.389999985694885px; line-height: 1.5em;">best known for its work accounting for a “carbon budget” and unburnable carbon</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.389999985694885px; line-height: 1.5em;"> — </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">raises further questions about the future of coal's global market hegemony. It's another blow to the coal industry as the </span><a href="http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">United Nations convenes this week's Climate Summit in New York City</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> to discuss climate disruption, in no small part driven by antiquated coal-fired power plants.</span></p>
<!--break-->
<h3>
Carbon Tracker: Global Coal Demand Diminishes</h3>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.389999985694885px; line-height: 1.5em;">Carbon Tracker's report,</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.389999985694885px; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span>”<a href="http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CTI-Coal-report-Sept-2014-WEB1.pdf">Carbon Supply Cost Curves: Evaluating Financial Risk to Coal Capital Expenditures</a>,”<a href="http://www.carbontracker.org/in-the-media/the-tide-is-turning-against-the-thermal-coal-industry-high-cost-new-mines-dont-make-sense-for-investors/"> concludes that</a> “the tide is turning against the thermal coal industry [and] high cost new mines don’t make sense for investors.”</p>
<p>A key reason why laying down capital investments in coal mining and the industry at-large is out of vogue is the situation in China.</p>
<p>As the <a href="http://climatedesk.org/2014/09/deep-inside-the-wild-world-of-chinas-fracking-boom/">Climate Desk recently pointed out</a>, China is undergoing its own <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/">hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”)</a> boom rife with its own problems (<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/methane-fracking-obama-climate-change-bill-mckibben">climate change included</a>), also mentioned in a <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/china-the-climate-and-the-fate-of-the-planet-20140915?page=6">recent Rolling Stone article on China's energy transition</a>.</p>
<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/llie_eehlJM" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p>As China shifts to shale gas production and feeding its electricity grid with methane, Chinese coal demand is expected to reach peak levels in 2016, according to Carbon Tracker.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“China’s coal demand could surprise people by peaking in 2016 and then decline gradually thereafter, driven by efficiency measures, increased renewables, hydro, gas and nuclear and tougher policies to cut air pollution,” </span><a href="http://www.carbontracker.org/in-the-media/the-tide-is-turning-against-the-thermal-coal-industry-high-cost-new-mines-dont-make-sense-for-investors/" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">explains a press release introducing the report</a><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">. </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“Coal producers around the world are relying on a flawed assumption of insatiable coal demand in China. The business model for coal looks on shaky ground without that demand.”</span></p>
<p>The same story goes for the United States, where the power grid has rapidly shifted from coal to gas supplies. <span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Just a couple weeks before the </span><span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="caps">S&amp;P</span> downgraded Peabody, it <a href="http://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1357005&amp;SctArtId=260348&amp;from=CM&amp;nsl_code=LIME&amp;sourceObjectId=8785893&amp;sourceRevId=6&amp;fee_ind=N&amp;exp_date=20240902-22%3A45%3A20">encouraged investors to bet big on fracking</a>. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="caps">S&amp;P</span> recommended doing so because President Barack Obama's carbon rule regulates coal-fired power plants, but not gas plants, meaning the entire oil and gas industry stands to gain </span><span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px; line-height: 1.5em;">— including midstream pipelines </span><span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px; line-height: 1.5em;">—</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> just as coal stands to lose.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“By now, pipeline companies have come to accept that abundant <span class="caps">U.S.</span> natural gas supply is here to stay. In response, they have undertaken various capital projects to improve their competitive position and adapt to changing natural gas flows,” <a href="https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1357005&amp;SctArtId=260348&amp;from=CM&amp;nsl_code=LIME&amp;sourceObjectId=8785893&amp;sourceRevId=6&amp;fee_ind=N&amp;exp_date=20240902-22%3A45%3A20">wrote </a></span><span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px;"><a href="https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1357005&amp;SctArtId=260348&amp;from=CM&amp;nsl_code=LIME&amp;sourceObjectId=8785893&amp;sourceRevId=6&amp;fee_ind=N&amp;exp_date=20240902-22%3A45%3A20"><span class="caps">S&amp;P</span></a>.</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“We expect the Clean Power Plan to provide additional incentives to pursue pipeline expansions given the longer-term expectations for growing natural gas consumption. While many pipeline companies are still addressing the implications of shale gas on their operations, we believe the Clean Power Plan translates to broadly positive implications companies in the sector.”</span></p>
<h3>
Peabody Disagrees, Murray Freaks Out</h3>
<p>Peabody Energy disagrees with these assessments and says China is not yet a lost cause for coal boosters.</p>
<p>“Based on current information, Peabody expects China's recent policy to have no negative impact on the company's coal export volumes,” the company <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/peabody-energy-provides-update-on-global-coal-fundamentals-2014-09-18">explained in a September 18 press release</a>.</p>
<p>“Also, the most restrictive aspects appear to apply to a limited number of coal users that lack emissions controls…Peabody applauds China's continuing actions to address emissions by greatly increasing demand for coal within power plants with control technologies, while reducing coal for use in direct applications that are emissions intensive.”</p>
<p>Though Peabody remains confident, at least one major coal company has not shown such resolve. </p>
<p>“We have the absolute destruction of the American coal industry. If you think it's coming back, you don't understand the business,” Murray Energy <span class="caps">CEO</span> <a href="http://triblive.com/business/headlines/6837696-74/coal-murray-industry#axzz3E5GrEoMG">Bob Murray remarked to hundreds of coal industry executives</a> at the <a href="http://www.platts.com/conferencedetail/2014/pc426/index">Platts 37th Coal Marketing Days</a>. “Or you're smoking dope.”</p>
<p>Murray further claimed that publicly traded companies like Peabody are being dishonest with their investors for public relations purposes about the future of coal. </p>
<p>“You got to be the low-cost producer every day, in every region. Everything else is public relations garbage by public companies that are worried about stock prices,” <a href="http://triblive.com/business/headlines/6837696-74/coal-murray-industry#axzz3E5GrEoMG">Murray said</a>.</p>
<p>With <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/china-coal-imports-idUKL3N0RG49X20140916">China set to ban imports of coal</a> containing high levels of ash and sulphur beginning in 2015, and seemingly keen to pursue a cleaner energy future, perhaps <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/mitt-romney-campaigns-wit_n_1476399.html">Murray <span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px; line-height: 19.0909080505371px;">— despite his climate change denial </span></a><span style="font-size: 12.7272720336914px; letter-spacing: 0.390000015497208px; line-height: 19.0909080505371px;">— </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">has a point.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:11px;"><em>Image credit: Future and past sign by Gunnar Pippel via <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-63535978/stock-photo-future-and-past-concept-with-yellow-road-sign.html">Shutterstock</a>.</em></span></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8655">King Coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10141">S&amp;P 500</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/761">china</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1520">Barack Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2702">obama</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/856">united nations</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6344">unconventional gas</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5565">shale gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18116">gas fired power plants</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6395">coal fired power plants</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18117">climate desk</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18113">SNL Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18114">market cap</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18115">market capitalization</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12433">carbon tracker</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14242">Murray Energy Corporation</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2479">peabody coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6467">Peabody</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18112">Robert E. Murray</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1187">murray energy</a></div></div></div>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:00:00 +0000Steve Horn8544 at http://www.desmogblog.comAdvertising Watchdog Says Peabody Energy 'Clean Coal' Advert Was Misleadinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/08/21/advertising-watchdog-says-peabody-energy-clean-coal-advert-was-misleading
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Fiore_Clean_Coal_0_0.jpg?itok=5rh6rlIA" width="200" height="149" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span class="caps">CLEAN</span> <span class="caps">COAL</span>, it's the two-word catch phrase the coal industry has used for years as it tries to convince the world its climate changing energy source has a future.</p>
<p>While the term “clean coal” is rightly met with ridicule and derision by many, up until this week it has been allowed to stand — at least in the world of advertising.</p>
<p>But now the <span class="caps">UK</span>’s advertising authorities have told <a href="https://www.google.com/finance?cid=666300">Peabody Energy</a> that it can no longer freely dangle its “clean coal” mythology in front of consumers without explaining itself.</p>
<p>The advert, devised by global <span class="caps">PR</span> agency Burson-Marsteller, claimed that Peabody was using “today’s clean coal technologies” to “improve emissions”.</p>
<p>In an adjudication, the <a href="http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/8/Peabody-Energy-Corporation/SHP_ADJ_266168.aspx#.U_UsJ7ySw0c" target="_blank">Advertising Standards Authority</a> said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Notwithstanding the fact that “clean coal” had a meaning within the energy sector, we considered that without further information, and particularly when followed by another reference to “clean, modern energy”, consumers were likely to interpret the word ”clean” as an absolute claim meaning that “clean coal” processes did not produce <span class="caps">CO</span>2 or other emissions. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <span class="caps">ASA</span> said that the complainant, environment group <span class="caps">WWF</span>, had argued the term “clean coal” was misleading and that it “implied that the advertiser's impact on the environment was less damaging than was actually the case”.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/peabody%20campaign.jpg"><img alt="Peabody Energy's 'misleading' advert" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/peabody%20campaign.jpg" style="float: right; width: 200px; height: 398px;" /></a></p>
<p>Tony Long, director of <span class="caps">WWF</span> European Policy Office, said: “Companies trading and selling polluting energies have a responsibility to be open and honest about their activities and products. The last thing they should be doing is trying to claim spurious environmental benefits from coal consumption. This merely damages the already tarnished reputation</p>
<p>of a struggling sector.”</p>
<p><span class="caps">WWF</span> said Peabody, the world’s biggest privately-owned coal company, should “take the <span class="caps">ASA</span> ruling seriously” and the group said it would be monitoring media for other exampl<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">es of misleading adverts.</span></p>
<p>The <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/ownlocal.adforge.production/ads/887098/original_pdfs.pdf?1393259518" target="_blank">advert</a> was part of Peabody Energy’s “Advanced Energy for Life” campaign that aims to take a moral high ground by claiming coal is a key to ending “energy poverty” in developing countries. The advert showed images of children in poverty-stricken circumstances.</p>
<p><span class="caps">WWF</span> had also challenged a claim in the advert that “energy poverty is the world's number one human and environmental crisis”, but <span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="caps">ASA</span> rejected these complaints, saying:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>We understood that, in this regard, Peabody Energy considered that they were working towards a solution to energy poverty which, although differing from <span class="caps">WWF</span>'s understanding of best practice, would nonetheless provide sources of energy to those populations that did not currently have reliable access. Although we appreciated that the use of coal-based energy to do this may be contentious, we did not consider that the ad was misleading by implying that Peabody Energy was attempting to find a solution to global energy poverty or by omitting information about the potential negative effects of coal-powered energy production.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A <a href="http://www.peabodyenergy.com/Investor-News-Release-Details.aspx?nr=844" target="_blank">statement from Peabody</a> said it “applauded” the <span class="caps">ASA</span> for standing by its claims to want to use coal to end “energy poverty”.</p>
<p>Peabody has now added a <a href="https://www.advancedenergyforlife.com/sites/default/files/Let%27s%20Brighten%20the%20Many%20Faces%20of%20Global%20Energy%20Poverty_0.pdf" target="_blank">footnote in small print to the advert</a>. <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-20/peabody-clean-coal-advertisement-ruled-misleading.html" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported Peabody was “confident” this tweak would satisfy the advertising watchdogs.</p>
<p>The “<a href="https://www.advancedenergyforlife.com/location/australia" target="_blank">Advanced Energy for Life</a>” campaign has a website targeting China, the <span class="caps">US</span> and Australia and was developed by Burson-Marsteller, one of the biggest <span class="caps">PR</span> firms in the world.</p>
<p>Burson-Marsteller has worked with the tobacco industry, aided governments with questionable human rights records and helped Union Carbide spin the aftermath of its infamous Bhopal poisonous gas explosion that killed thousands and injured many more.</p>
<p>The claim that coal burning should not be restricted because it can help lift poor nations from poverty has been an increasingly popular line from coal bosses across the world. Climate science deniers at the last major United Nations climate negotiations in Warsaw <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/19/climate-denial-group-cfact-congratulates-australia-during-warsaw-cop19-talks" target="_blank">claimed coal was the “moral choice”</a>. </p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The argument is also a favourite of Danish poilitical scientist <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg" target="_blank">Bjorn Lomborg</a>, as outlined here on my <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/dec/06/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-poor-countries-need-fossil-fuels" target="_blank">Planet Oz blog for The Guardian</a>.</span></p>
<p>Earlier this week, Australia’s public broadcaster the <span class="caps">ABC</span> screened an episode of its investigative current affairs program <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/08/18/4067593.htm" target="_blank">Four Corners</a> looking at the impact of coal on the Great Barrier Reef. <span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In the program, the country’s environment minister Greg Hunt equated stopping massive coal export projects to “condemning people to poverty”. </span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17662">greg hunt</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6900">Advertising Standards Authority</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2151">clean coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1495">WWF</a></div></div></div>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:00:00 +0000Graham Readfearn8395 at http://www.desmogblog.comDocuments: Cheniere Fuels ALEC’s New Push for Fracked Gas Exportshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/31/alec-cheniere-fracking-lng-gas-exports
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/ALEC-ENERGY-AGENDA.jpg?itok=NzWQvs65" width="200" height="119" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Today, legislative and lobbyist members of the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6907">American Legislative Exchange Council (<span class="caps">ALEC</span>)</a> voted on model legislation promoting both exports of gas obtained via <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/">hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”)</a> and vehicles powered by <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6636">compressed natural gas (<span class="caps">CNG</span>)</a>. </p>
<p>Dubbed a “<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/03/12024/alec-corporate-bill-mill-posts-some-model-bills-online-first-time-watchdogs-say-m">corporate bill mill</a>” by its critics, <span class="caps">ALEC</span> is heavily engaged in a state-level effort to <a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/alec_s_attack_on_clean_energy">attack renewable energy</a> and grease the skids for exports of <span class="caps">U.S.</span> oil and gas. Today's bills up for a vote — as conveyed in an <a href="http://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/EEA-35-day-AM-2014.pdf"><span class="caps">ALEC</span> mailer sent out on June 25</a> by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Energy,_Environment_and_Agriculture_Task_Force"><span class="caps">ALEC</span>'s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force</a> — are titled “<a href="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Resolution%20In%20Support%20of%20Expanded%20Liquefied%20Natural%20Gas%20Exports.pdf">Resolution In Support of Expanded Liquefied Natural Gas Exports</a>“ and “<a href="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Weights%20and%20Measures%20and%20Standards%20for%20Dispensing%20CNG%20and%20LNG%20Motor%20Fuels.pdf">Weights and Measures and Standards for Dispensing <span class="caps">CNG</span> and <span class="caps">LNG</span> Motor Fuels</a>.” </p>
<p>An exclusive investigation conducted by DeSmogBlog reveals that <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7547">Cheniere</a> — the <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-16/cheniere-wins-u-dot-s-dot-approval-for-natural-gas-export-terminal">first <span class="caps">U.S.</span> company</a> to receive a final <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7345">liquefied natural gas (<span class="caps">LNG</span>)</a> export permit by the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (<span class="caps">FERC</span>) — has acted as the lead corporate backer of the <span class="caps">LNG</span> exports model resolution. </p>
<p>Further, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/12839">Clean Energy Fuels Corporation</a>, owned by energy baron <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3362">T. Boone Pickens</a>, of <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6926">Pickens Plan</a> fame, and trade associations it is a member of, served as the main pusher of the <span class="caps">CNG</span> model resolution.</p>
<p><span class="caps">ALEC</span> has served as a key vehicle through which the fracking industry has curried favor and pushed for policies favorable to their bottom lines in statehouses nationwide. Now <span class="caps">ALEC</span> and its corporate backers have upped the ante, pushing policies that will lock in downstream demand for fracked gas for years to come. </p>
<p>With <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/841593/alec-docs.pdf">Cheniere becoming an <span class="caps">ALEC</span> dues-paying member in May 2013</a> and with <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6013">America’s Natural Gas Alliance (<span class="caps">ANGA</span>)</a> — the fracking industry's tour de force — <a href="http://alec.org/docs/EEA_2013_SNPS_35_Day.pdf">crowned an <span class="caps">ALEC</span> member in August 2013</a>, it looks like many more fracking-friendly model bills could arise out of <span class="caps">ALEC</span> in the months and years ahead.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>According to a document obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy, <a href="http://prwatch.org/news/2014/07/12557/polluters">top <span class="caps">ALEC</span> 2014 Annual Meeting sponsors in Dallas include</a> <span class="caps">ANGA</span>, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Devon Energy, and TransCanada, among others.</p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ALEC%202014%20Annual%20Meeting%20Corporate%20Sponsors.jpeg" style="width: 500px; height: 375px;" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11px;"><em>Photo Credit: <a href="http://prwatch.org/users/35314/nick-surgey">Nick Surgey</a> | <a href="http://prwatch.org/news/2014/07/12557/polluters"><span class="caps">PR</span> Watch</a> </em></span></p>
<p><span class="caps">LNG</span> exports will serve as the focus for part one of this series, while <span class="caps">CNG</span> vehicles will serve as the focus for part two. </p>
<h3>
“<span class="caps">LNG</span> Day”</h3>
<p>The genesis of the Cheniere-backed model bill<span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> is tied to a <a href="http://www.lmoga.com/news/louisiana-natural-gas-day-at-the-legislature-is-a-success/">March 26 “<span class="caps">LNG</span> Day” reception</a> put together in Baton Rouge, </span>La.<span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> on March 26 by the influential lobbying firm, The Picard Group. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="caps">LNG</span> Day gives Legislators the opportunity to learn more about the benefits of natural gas,” exclaimed a press release featuring a photo of the event taken by </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Dawn Cole of The Picard Group</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">. “</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Attendance was great and the day was successful.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">That release was </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">disseminated by the </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, of which <a href="http://www.lmoga.com/members/member-companies/">Cheniere is a member</a>. Among <a href="http://thepicardgroup.com/clients-references">The Picard Group's clients: Cheniere</a>, which it is <a href="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Cheniere%20and%20Picard%20Group%20Connection.pdf">registered to lobby for in Louisiana</a>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/LNG%20Day%20FOIA%20Docs%20-%20Louisiana.pdf">Emails obtained by DeSmogBlog</a> under Louisiana Public Records Act reveal that </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Laura%20MacDiarmid%20-%20LinkedIn.pdf">Laura MacDiarmid</a>, who works as a g</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">overnment and environmental affairs analyst for Cheniere, was copied</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> on email outreach by The Picard Group to Louisiana state representatives inviting them to participate in <span class="caps">LNG</span> Day.</span></p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202014-07-31%20at%204.52.49%20PM.png" style="width: 350px; height: 255px;" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11px;"><em><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Image Credit: </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Louisiana Public Records Act</span></em></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Further, “<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/02/our-energy-moment-blue-engine-pr-firm-fracked-gas-exports-pr-campaign">Our Energy Moment</a>“ </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">— the gas industry-funded propaganda campaign promoting <span class="caps">LNG</span> exports </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">— put out a release of its own promoting “<span class="caps">LNG</span> Day.” </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">That release featured a quote from <a href="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Jason%20French%20-%20LinkedIn.pdf">Jason French</a>, listed only as a “</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">spokesperson for the Our Energy Moment coalition” in the release. In reality, French serves as d</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">irector of government and public affairs for Cheniere. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">French wrote an article published in the July/August 2013 edition of “Inside <span class="caps">ALEC</span>” titled, “</span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://LNG Exports – A Story of American Innovation and Economic Opportunity"><span class="caps">LNG</span> Exports – A Story of American Innovation and Economic Opportunity</a>” and also <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/08/12203/whats-alecs-agenda-its-40th-anniversary-meeting-chicago">gave a presentation on <span class="caps">LNG</span> exports at <span class="caps">ALEC</span>'s 2013 Annual Meeting held in Chicago, Ill.</a></span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Via email, French confirmed with DeSmogBlog that he will also be <a href="http://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/EEA-35-day-AM-2014.pdf">giving a presentation at this year's <span class="caps">ALEC</span> meeting in Dallas on <span class="caps">LNG</span> exports immediately before the model resolution promoting them receives a vote</a> by <span class="caps">ALEC</span> member legislators and corporate lobbyists. </span></p>
<p><span class="caps">LNG</span> Day, though, was more than a gas industry-manufactured media event. Out of it arose <a href="http://openstates.org/la/bills/2014/HCR29/">House Concurrent Resolution 29</a>, co-sponsored by <a href="http://house.louisiana.gov/h_reps/members.asp?ID=36">Speaker of The House, Rep. Chuck Kleckley</a> and <a href="http://mail.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Louisiana_ALEC_Politicians">Sen. John A. Alario, Jr. (an <span class="caps">ALEC</span> member)</a>. </p>
<p>Alario, Jr. has taken significant campaign money from <span class="caps">LNG</span> exporters, such as <a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor_details.phtml?c=136466&amp;i=33">ExxonMobil, Energy Transfer Partners</a> and <a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor_details.phtml?c=113686&amp;i=33">Sempra</a>.</p>
<p>After <a href="http://openstates.org/la/bills/2014/HCR29/"><span class="caps">HCR</span> 29 passed the House under suspended rules, it also passed unanimously in a 36-0 vote</a> in the Senate on March 25. The next evening after the lights went off on the day-time <span class="caps">LNG</span> Day festivities, lobbyists and legislators convened for a corporate-sponsored reception at the Jimmie Davis House. </p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202014-07-31%20at%2012.53.21%20AM_0.png" style="width: 500px; height: 380px;" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 11px;"><em>Image Credit: Louisiana Public Records Act</em></span></p>
<p>Among the sponsors — a copy of the invitation obtained via Louisiana Public Records Act shows — were those set to benefit most from a policy of plentiful <span class="caps">LNG</span> exports: the frackers and the <span class="caps">LNG</span> exporters, such as <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6356">Chesapeake Energy</a>, <span class="caps">ANGA</span>, Our Energy Moment, Cheniere, Trunkline <span class="caps">LNG</span>, Magnolia <span class="caps">LNG</span> and Sempra <span class="caps">LNG</span> and others. </p>
<h3>
Guessing at Numbers and Figures </h3>
<p>The language found within <span class="caps">HCR</span> 29 mirrors that found within the <span class="caps">ALEC</span> model resolution.</p>
<p>Both cite “pioneering exploration and extraction methods that have opened vast natural gas resources to development.” Both also contend that <span class="caps">LNG</span> exports “will support fifty thousand jobs in the exploration and production sectors for every two billion cubic feet per day of exports,” literally word-for-word in boilerplate fashion.</p>
<p>French's article appearing in <span class="caps">ALEC</span>'s “Inside <span class="caps">ALEC</span>” in the July/August 2013 edition makes the same exact jobs claim.</p>
<p>“Every 2 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) of exported gas will support 50,000 jobs in the exploration and production sectors,” <a href="http://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/InsideALEC_JulyAug_2013_webres.pdf">he wrote</a>.</p>
<p>In citing the jobs numbers in his article, French points to a study written by the Perryman Group titled, “<a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/authorizations/2012_applications/12_97_lng.pdf">The Anticipated Impact of Cheniere's Proposed Corpus Christi Liquefaction Facility on Business Activity in Corpus Christi, Texas, and the <span class="caps">US</span></a>.” </p>
<p><a href="http://perrymangroup.com/clients/">Cheniere is listed as one Perryman's clients</a> on the consulting group's website and a review by DeSmogBlog shows the report has been widely cited by Cheniere,<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/24/2012-26191/cheniere-marketing-llc-application-for-long-term-authorization-to-export-liquefied-natural-gas"> including in official legal filings</a>. </p>
<p>Perryman came under fire by a <a href="http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf">Cornell University study rebuttal</a> after the consultancy launched a <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20121015153443/http://transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/TransCanada_US_Report_06-10-10.pdf">June 2010 study</a> on behalf of <a href="http://desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/5420">TransCanada</a> — also <a href="http://perrymangroup.com/clients/">listed as a Perryman client</a> — claiming the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/5857">Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span></a> tar sands pipeline would create an astronomical 250,348 permanent jobs. </p>
<h3>
Louisiana's “Stink Tank”</h3>
<p>Given the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7681">State Policy Network</a> (<span class="caps">SPN</span>) “<a href="http://stinktanks.org/">stink tanks</a>” are a <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/09/stink-tanks-historical-records-reveal-state-policy-network-created-alec">creation of <span class="caps">ALEC</span> — as first revealed here on DeSmogBlog in December 2013</a> — it is only logical that an <span class="caps">SPN</span> offshoot played a role in ushering in <span class="caps">HCR</span> 29 and what would become the <span class="caps">ALEC</span> model resolution on <span class="caps">LNG</span> exports.</p>
<p>Enter: the <a href="http://www.pelicaninstitute.org/">Pelican Institute for Public Policy</a>, the <a href="http://blog.littlesis.org/2010/01/28/boustany-and-the-landrieu-phone-tamperers/">well-connected</a> Louisiana-based <a href="http://www.spn.org/directory/char.P/organizations.asp"><span class="caps">SPN</span> offshoot group</a>. In January 2014, Pelican published a report titled, “<a href="http://www.thepelicanpost.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NaturalGasGlobal_report_LO8.pdf">Risk, Reward <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Revolution: Why globalizing the natural gas revolution is smart environmental and economic policy for Louisiana</a>.”</p>
<p>Paralleling the Perryman study commissioned by Cheniere and cited in the model resolution and French's article published in “Inside <span class="caps">ALEC</span>,” the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pelican_Institute">Pelican Institute</a> report cites figures from a <a href="http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Policy/LNG-Exports/API-State-Level-LNG-Export-Report-by-ICF.pdf">November 2013 <span class="caps">ICF</span> International report on the economic impacts of <span class="caps">LNG</span> exports</a> commissioned by the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/643">American Petroleum Institute (<span class="caps">API</span>)</a>.</p>
<p>Another Perryman parallel: <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/03/11/state-department-keystone-xl-study-oil-industry-big-tobacco-fracking"><span class="caps">ICF</span> was one of the consulting groups chosen</a> by TransCanada for the State Department's Environmental Impact Statement on the northern leg of the Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2632">tar sands</a> line. </p>
<h3>
“Not a Sponsor of the Resolution”</h3>
<p>Contacted via email, French told DeSmogBlog that part of the reason Cheniere has become active in <span class="caps">ALEC</span> is because the company is a “leader in engaging and educating the public,” for which <span class="caps">ALEC</span> provides a platform. </p>
<p>“Cheniere is a leader in the <span class="caps">US</span> <span class="caps">LNG</span> Export industry – an industry that is relatively new and unfamiliar to much of the country,” said French. “We participate in forums such as <span class="caps">ALEC</span>, National Conference of State Legislatures, State Government Affairs Council, the Marcellus Shale Coalition and others as a way to engage with and inform policy makers about the significant economic benefits of our projects and the <span class="caps">LNG</span> export industry as whole.”</p>
<p>While French did not deny Cheniere's authorship of the bill, he said by technicality, the company was not the sponsor of it either.</p>
<p>“We are not a sponsor of the resolution at <span class="caps">ALEC</span>, but are a proud supporter of it. As many organizations do, and as part of our outreach efforts, we provided information that helped shape the resolution.”</p>
<p>He says Cheniere has pushed for the resolution's passage since joining <span class="caps">ALEC</span>.</p>
<p>“We are pleased that it will be on the upcoming agenda, and hope that our previous outreach efforts to the <span class="caps">ALEC</span> membership will be helpful in its passage.”</p>
<h3>
Cheniere's Latest “Market Signal”</h3>
<p>Far from a stand-alone case study, Cheniere has used connections to powerful political officals on both sides of the political aisle to win policy gains. </p>
<p>Most recently, it <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/20/heather-zichal-former-obama-energy-aide-named-board-member-lng-exports-giant-cheniere">nominated Heather Zichal</a> — President Barack Obama's former “energy czar” who stepped down in November 2013 — <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/27/heather-zichal-met-with-cheniere-executives-as-obama-energy-aide-before-board-nomination">to sit on the Board</a>. And its federal-level lobbying efforts are bolstered by a <a href="http://www.dcbureau.org/201305238612/natural-resources-news-service/powerful-friends-help-cheniere-cut-through-regulation.html">lobbying team headed by former Bush Administration Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham</a>. </p>
<p>Put another way, <span class="caps">ALEC</span> provides a new cheap lobbying entry point of access to literally hundreds of mostly Republican Party officials for Cheniere.</p>
<p>So while merely pushing a symbolic resolution that can be introduced and passed in statehouses across the “<a href="http://theunitedstatesofalec.org/">United States of <span class="caps">ALEC</span></a>,” what<span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> Cheniere's investors get out it is an all-important “</span><a href="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/market-signal.html" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">market signal</a>” to continue investing in climate change causing and ecologically destructive fracking infrastructure.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Or as former <span class="caps">ALEC</span> Executive Director Sam Brunelli <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/09/stink-tanks-historical-records-reveal-state-policy-network-created-alec">wrote in a July 1991 letter to an executive at the Tobacco Institute</a> describing <span class="caps">ALEC</span>'s importance, “Winning is the operative word…[W]inning the public policy debate will continue to have a tremendous positive effect on the 'bottom line' of your company.”</span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5863">oklahoma</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17481">Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8931">unconventional oil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2800">natural gas</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5565">shale gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7277">shale oil</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6344">unconventional gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12654">America’s Natural Gas Alliance</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7410">ANGA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17480">Baton Rouge</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10398">UPS</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17477">United Parcel Service</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17478">Louisiana Public Records Act</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11046">BP Capital</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17462">Brenda Ellington</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16970">Heather Zichal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9782">The Abraham Group</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16980">Majida Mourad</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17463">Speaker Kleckley</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17464">John Alario Jr.</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17465">John Alario</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17466">Chuck Kleckley</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17467">Laura MacDiarmid</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/745">california</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17468">LOGA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17469">CeCe Richter</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6181">Louisiana</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/917">texas</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2625">pennsylvania</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6639">LNG</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6638">CNG</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6926">Pickens Plan</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17470">National Conference on Weights and Measures</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17471">NCWM</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7345">Liquefied Natural Gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5137">hydraulic fracturing</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7547">Cheniere</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3362">T. Boone Pickens</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6907">american legislative exchange council</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6853">ALEC</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17472">desmogblog.com</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12839">Clean Energy Fuels Corporation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17473">the picard group</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17474">lng day</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17475">sen. ted lieu</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/chevron">chevron</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11036">Devon Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8655">King Coal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6395">coal fired power plants</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2702">obama</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3844">Obama administration</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1107">American Electric Power</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5420">TransCanada</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2931">ACCCE</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2930">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17476">TXU Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/700">CFACT</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13401">Pioneer Natural Resources</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6298">apache</a></div></div></div>Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:42:34 +0000Steve Horn8351 at http://www.desmogblog.comCampus Discontent: Washington University Students Sit-In Against Peabody, Harvard Faculty Call for Divestmenthttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/10/campus-discontent-washington-university-students-sit-against-peabody-harvard-faculty-call-divestment
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/10245548_508039079301145_2934263347703501135_n.jpg?itok=7nTjVhdp" width="200" height="286" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It's a busy week in the campus fossil fuel divestment movement. </p>
<p>A “sit in” by students at the Washington University of St. Louis enters its third day today. The protestors have camped out underneath their campus's Brookings Archway since Tuesday, demanding that the school cut ties with Peabody Energy — the world's largest private coal company — and its <span class="caps">CEO</span> Greg Boyce. </p>
<p>Boyce was named to <span class="caps">WU</span>'s Board of Trustees in 2009. One year earlier, Peabody gave the university millions of dollars to help create the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization. (Along with Arch Coal, who also kicked in, the investment was roughly $5 million.) </p>
<p><a href="http://www.wearepowershift.org/blogs/why-we%E2%80%99re-sitting-washu-and-we%E2%80%99re-not-leaving">According to Caroline Burney</a>, a senior at Washington University, the sit-in only became necessary after many other attempts for dialogue with the school's administration were exhausted. Burney writes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Peabody Energy <span class="caps">CEO</span> Greg Boyce also holds one more distinction: member of the Washington University Board of Trustees. Since Boyce was placed on the board in 2009, students have been actively organizing against Peabody Energy’s presence on campus. We have demanded that Boyce be removed from the Board of Trustees and that the University change the name of the “Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization,” a research entity to which Peabody and Arch Coal donated $5,000,000. We have met with the Chancellor – multiple times. We have dropped banners at coal events, peacefully disrupted speeches by Greg Boyce on campus, marched through campus and taken our demands to Peabody’s headquarters. We have protested with residents from Black Mesa, collected signatures for the Take Back St. Louis ballot initiative and rallied with the United Mine Workers in their fight against Peabody.</p>
<p>But, five years later, Boyce is still on the board, the name of the Clean Coal Consortium remains unchanged, and Chancellor Wrighton continues to stand behind Peabody Energy. Indeed, just this week he emailed us saying, “your opinion that peabody energy behaves in an ‘irresponsible and unjust manner’ is not one that I share.” The Administration has successfully used a “deny by delay” process by holding town hall meetings and developing task forces around renewable energy and energy efficiency while ignoring the role that coal plays on the campus.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/10001321_10152294921783290_4591304688917940678_n.jpg" style="width: 560px; height: 420px;" /></p>
<!--break-->
<p>In a <a href="http://www.studlife.com/forum/2014/04/10/lets-talk-about-peabody/">powerful editorial for Student Life</a>, the independent newspaper of Washington University of St. Louis, staff writer Aaron Hall echoes the students' frustrations, and lays out the stakes of the action:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So what can the divestment movement do to cut Wash. U’s affiliation with this robber baron? The answer is that it has done as much as it can so far. It has the public’s attention and has made clear actions to open dialogue with the administration. Unfortunately, the board of trustees keeps Wash. U.’s financials well-hidden from the eyes of its students. So the divestment movement’s first goal is to increase financial transparency so we can see to what extent Peabody funds our school. Secondly, it requests that Boyce be removed from the board of trustees, primarily for the blatantly unethical worker treatment that occurred under his leadership. What does it take for the administration to address this civil and reasonable request? If a sit-in isn’t enough, then I don’t know what is.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here's video of the sit-in by Student Life, the student newspaper of Washington University of St. Louis. </p>
<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="309" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BN-8i-Be_Hc" width="550"></iframe></p>
<p>Meanwhile, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, student and alumni advocates for divestment at Harvard University have been joined by a powerful faction: their teachers. On Thursday morning, nearly 100 faculty members <a href="http://www.harvardfacultydivest.com/">published an open letter</a> to President Drew Faust and the University's Fellows, expressing frustration with the president's dismissive statements on divestment, and demanding that the University “divest, as soon as possible, its holdings in fossil fuel corporations.”</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Divestment is an act of ethical responsibility, a protest against current practices that cannot be altered as quickly or effectively by other means. The University either invests in fossil fuel corporations, or it divests. If the Corporation regards divestment as “political,” then its continued investment is a similarly political act, one that finances present corporate activities and calculates profit from them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can <a href="http://www.harvardfacultydivest.com/">read the letter in its entirety here</a>. </p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/harvard">Harvard</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15868">harvard university</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15866">washington university of st louis</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11788">divestment</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15867">sit in</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2479">peabody coal</a></div></div></div>Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:52:29 +0000Ben Jervey7995 at http://www.desmogblog.comPeabody Energy Faces Popular Revolt at Illinois EPA Coal Hearinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/20/peabody-energy-faces-popular-revolt-illinois-epa-hearing
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/peabody-share-350.png?itok=ZZKOTCIT" width="200" height="159" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Last night, at an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency hearing about a water quality permit for the expansion of a Peabody Energy strip mine in Rocky Branch, <span class="caps">IL</span>, local residents made it clear that they've had enough of the coal industry's destructive presence in their community.<br /><br />
According to writer Jeff Biggers, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/illinois-residents-stand_b_4822509.html" target="_blank">residents outnumbered Peabody supporters</a> four-to-one among those willing to make public comments, and they had one overriding message: “We the people of Rocky Branch,” one resident, Jennifer Dumberis, said, “we will decide what happens to us and our civil rights—not Peabody.”</p>
<p>This is <a href="http://www.disclosurenewsonline.com/2014/01/02/read-the-lead-turmoil-brewing-in-cottage-grove-township/" target="_blank">not the first time</a> Illinois residents have taken their concerns directly to Peabody and the regulatory bodies who are failing to protect Illinois communities from the impacts of the company's mining operations. Residents have presented ample evidence of what has been done to Cottage Grove township, which is adjacent to the strip mine Peabody is seeking to expand: blasting that is like <a href="http://www.wsiltv.com/home/top-story/Cottage-Grove-Strip-Mine-Expansion-Plan-Worries-Neighbors-229199391.html" target="blank">“small earthquakes”</a>, <a href="http://www.dailyregister.com/article/20140128/News/140129128" target="blank">toxic coal dust</a> that seeps through cracks in their homes caused by the blasts, and <a href="http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/il-state-news/Residents-sound-off-on-a-proposal-for-strip-mining-in-Saline-County--235476401.html" target="blank">polluted waterways</a> that some residents fear will eventually make their homes uninhabitable altogether.<br /><br />
Peabody had already started clearcutting the area intended to become its Rocky Branch Mine, just south of the Cottage Grove strip mine, but federal regulators stepped in and <a href="http://thesouthern.com/news/local/coal-mine-company-ordered-to-stop-logging/article_fd09fccc-7e6c-11e3-b118-001a4bcf887a.html" target="_blank">ordered Peadody to stop logging</a> immedately because it was being done in violation of the law.<br /><br />
It's unclear what, if any, benefits Peabody can offer the residents of Rocky Branch should its strip mine be allowed to expand. <a href="http://www.wsiltv.com/home/top-story/Cottage-Grove-Strip-Mine-Expansion-Plan-Worries-Neighbors-229199391.html" target="_blank">No jobs</a> are expected to be created, and the state already <a href="http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/downstream-strategies_illinois_impact_of_coal_6-27-13.pdf" target="_blank">loses an estimated $20 million annually</a> to support the coal industry.<br /><br />
Citizen action to hold coal companies and regulators accountable is more important than ever in Illinois, as the coal industry does not seem to be waning in the state. Even while coal is <a href="http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/29/can-the-coal-industry-survive-the-shakeout.aspx" target="_blank">losing market share</a> across the country and renewable energies like wind power are rapidly achieving cost parity (in fact, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-17/wind-power-rivals-coal-with-1-billion-order-from-buffett.html" target="_blank">wind is already cheaper than coal in Iowa</a>, Illinois' neighbor), Illinois just received a <a href="http://www.sj-r.com/article/20140116/NEWS/140119554?refresh=true" target="_blank">$1 billion grant</a> from the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Department of Energy to continue the <a href="http://www.sj-r.com/x1658263682/Group-calls-for-pulling-the-plug-on-FutureGen" target="_blank">controversial</a> “clean coal” project FutureGen.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><br />
Image via <a href="http://www.laprogressive.com/united-mine-workers/"><span class="caps">LA</span> Progressive</a>.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1209">Illinois</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1471">Environmental Protection Agency</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15379">strip mine</a></div></div></div>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:22:55 +0000Mike Gaworecki7864 at http://www.desmogblog.comSt. Louis Judge Cites Citizens United to Protect Tax Breaks for Peabody Energyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/13/st-louis-judge-cites-citizen-united-protect-tax-breaks-peabody-energy
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/we-the-corporations-citizens-united.jpg?itok=zLEVx-Ig" width="200" height="109" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>With the quick stroke of a pen, a circuit court judge in St. Louis has singlehandedly silenced more than 22,000 city residents, who had sought to bring a ballot initiative to end tax breaks to fossil fuel companies to a citywide vote in April.</p>
<p>Last summer, volunteers with the <a href="http://www.takebackstlouis.com/">Take Back St. Louis coalition</a> gathered over 22,000 signatures to put onto the ballot a measure that would amend the city’s charter to include a “Sustainable Energy Policy” and end taxpayer-funded support of fossil fuel companies.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.takebackstlouis.com/judge_dierker_sides_with_peabody">According to Take Back St. Louis</a>, the “proposed charter amendment would end public financial incentives, such as tax abatements, to fossil fuel mining companies and those doing $1 million of business with them per year, and requires the city to create a sustainable energy plan for renewable energy and sustainability initiatives on city-owned vacant land.”</p>
<p>On Tuesday, Judge Robert Dierker sided with <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a> (in a decision you can <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/206544694/Sustainable-Energy-Order-Feb-11-2014">read here</a>) to grant a temporary restraining order that would, in essence, keep the initiative off the April 8th ballot.</p>
<p>First declaring the initiative “facially unconstitutional,” Judge Dierker proceeded to cite the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission"><em>Citizens United</em></a> decision in explaining why the policy would represent a “patent denial of equal protection” to fossil fuel energy companies. Specifically, Judge Dierker wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>business entities (which, after all, are a species of associations of citizens coming together in the exercise of economic freedom) are entitled to constitutional protection as citizens and may not arbitrarily be denied basic legal rights. See <em>Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm.</em>, 558 <span class="caps">U.S.</span> 310 (2010).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The proposed initiative and judge’s decision have implications far beyond the city of St. Louis. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a>, the largest privately-owned coal mining company in the world, is headquartered in St. Louis, and received tax breaks of over $61 million from the city in 2010. The Take Back St. Louis coalition was hoping to target future giveaways, arguing that the public funds would be much better spent on underfunded local services like schools.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>We fundamentally disagree with this temporary ruling, and quoting <em>Citizens United</em> is an insult to home rule powers and our local democracy. Saying that Peabody Energy has equal rights with St. Louis public school students who lack supplies due to corporate tax breaks is what is a violation of rights in our city,” said Reginald Rounds with the Take Back St. Louis campaign. “We, and the 22,000 registered voters in the City of St. Louis who signed to put this on the ballot, will continue to fight for our right to have a sustainable local economy, not one run by coal corporations and other polluters.”</p>
<p>Peabody Energy’s lawyers filed the restraining order motion two weeks ago, and seem to have a sympathetic ear with Judge Dierker, who is an outspoken opponent of public interest law. In 2006, Judge Dierker authored “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Tyranny-Tolerance-Sitting-Judicial/dp/030733919X">The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault</a>,” a book which he promoted extensively on Fox News.<br /><br />
Also providing testimony in the hearing were two representatives from the mayor’s office, who oppose the citizen-driven initiative, spotlighting what Take Back St. Louis reps call “collaboration” between the mayor’s office and Peabody.</p>
<p>Take Back St. Louis has vowed to fight the temporary restraining order, and the legal battle could prove a crucial precedent for how the controversial <em>Citizens United</em> ruling can be applied to local resistance against taxpayer handouts to fossil fuel companies. </p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5712">Citizens United</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2479">peabody coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15324">take back st louis</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15325">st louis</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8950">Fossil Fuel Subsidies</a></div></div></div>Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:56:31 +0000Ben Jervey7847 at http://www.desmogblog.comCoal Industry Report On Social Cost Of Carbon Relies On Climate Science Denialhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/06/coal-industry-report-social-cost-carbon-relies-climate-science-denial
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Fiore_Clean_Coal_0.jpg?itok=fQBPlyUl" width="200" height="149" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The <a href="http://www.cleancoalusa.org/" target="_blank">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a> (<span class="caps">ACCCE</span>) seems a confusing and confused organisation of <a href="http://www.cleancoalusa.org/about-us/members" target="_blank">major coal miners and burners</a> - even if you only consider its oxymoronic title.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">When the industry group was </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/same-front-group-different-day" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">launched in 2008</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, the message was that coal — the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning globally — could be part of the future.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>I believe we can limit greenhouse gases,” declared one of the wholesome American citizens depicted in the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> television adverts.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">One can only presume that the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> has now dropped its hopes of limiting greenhouse gases, given that its latest “</span><a href="http://www.americaspower.org/landmark-report-calculates-societal-benefits-fossil-energy-be-least-50-times-greater-perceived-costs" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">landmark report</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">” claims the benefits to society of putting extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere massively outweigh the costs. Surely the message should be, “burn baby, burn”?</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.americaspower.org/sites/default/files/Social-Benefits-of-Carbon.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">The Social Costs Of Carbon? No, The Social Benefits Of Carbon</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> report by <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> claims the benefits of adding extra <span class="caps">CO</span>2 to the atmosphere are between 50 and 500 times higher than the costs.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">But the report attacks climate change science using sources as ideologically tainted as the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute">Heartland Institute</a> – an organisation which once </span><a href="http://desmogblog.com/heartland-billboard-most-prominent-advocates-global-warming-aren-t-scientists-they-are-murderers-tyrants-and-madmen" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">ran a billboard campaign</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> with a picture of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski to claim that the “most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">At its core, the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report is one long misrepresentation of the impact of coal on the planet, from its effects on growing food crops to raising sea levels to fuelling risk-laden climate change.</span></p>
<!--break-->
<h4>
Carbon Dioxide as “food for plants”</h4>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">One of the most popular debating points for <a href="http://desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database">climate science deniers</a> is to tell you that carbon dioxide is simply food for plants.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report takes this well worn and simplistic climate science denial talking point and pushes it to its extreme. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">While it’s true that some plants generally grow quicker when more carbon dioxide is available, this is grossly simplistic and ignores the impacts of human-caused climate change on flooding and prolonged drought.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">According to <span class="caps">ACCCE</span>, “the more <span class="caps">CO</span>2 there is in the air, the better plants grow” and that adding more <span class="caps">CO</span>2 to the atmosphere will only have positive benefits.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Professor Arnold Bloom, of the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of California at Davis, told DeSmogBlog:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The coal industry in the United States has repeatedly tried to make such claims, but the short-term stimulation of plant productivity and crop yields at elevated <span class="caps">CO</span>2 diminishes with longer exposures (weeks, months, years), a phenomenon known as <span class="caps">CO</span>2 acclimation. Moreover, longer exposures to elevated <span class="caps">CO</span>2 decrease food quality and increase pest problems because pests must consume more plant product to meet their nutritional needs. I have discovered that elevated <span class="caps">CO</span>2 inhibits the conversion of nitrate into protein in most plants.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Several passages of the section of <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report on plant growth are near identical to text from </span><a href="http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">a report produced by Craig Idso</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Internal documents from the Heartland Institute have revealed that </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Craig Idso</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> receives $11,600 a month from the climate denial group.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Idso is also a former director at Peabody Energy — one of the world’s biggest coal companies and a member of the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span>.</span></p>
<h4>
Social Cost of Carbon</h4>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The report takes time to sully the concept of Integrated Assessment Models (<span class="caps">IAM</span>s) that are a method used to work out how much each tonne of carbon dioxide costs society. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">This is known as the social cost of carbon (<span class="caps">SCC</span>) and the </span><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/11/01/refining-estimates-social-cost-carbon" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank"><span class="caps">US</span> administration currently has the figure</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> at about $37 per metric tonne.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report heavily cites the work of Robert Pindyck, a Professor at the Massachusets Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Pindyck has been critical of <span class="caps">IAM</span>s and the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report quotes a </span><a href="http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">working paper produced last year</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> where he described <span class="caps">IAM</span>s as being “close to useless” as a tool for policy analysis. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">However, the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report did not choose to cite the very first sentence of Pindyck’s paper, which said:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost<em>.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Nor did the coal group’s report cite another concern Pindyck has with the use of <span class="caps">IAM</span>s, which was also outlined in the abstract of the report, and said:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>…the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the <span class="caps">SCC</span>, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Also cited in the report’s section looking at <span class="caps">IAM</span>s is James Risbey, a climatologist now at Australia’s government-funded science agency the <span class="caps">CSIRO</span>. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The coal report cites a scientific paper written by Risbey 18 years ago and which warned that the use of <span class="caps">IAM</span>s came with several pitfalls. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">After viewing the coal report, Risbey told me:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report questions a number of issues as if they were in dispute or subject to major uncertainties that have been resolved for decades. The report appears to question the relative roles of natural and anthropogenic emissions in driving climate change. It has long been known that anthropogenic emissions are driving the increase in <span class="caps">CO</span>2 concentration. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report appears to question whether greenhouse climate change will cause damages. The methods of accounting and costing damages from climate change have been contentious and often questioned. Much of that questioning has been based on a concern that the way damages are represented is too simple, leading to damage assessments that could grossly under-represent the true damages. The uncertainties relate to the scale of the damages, not to the very likelihood of them happening as implied in the report.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, two key sources used by <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> in its criticisms of <span class="caps">IAM</span>s seem in reality to disagree with the key message of the report.&gt;</p>
<h4>
Sea Level Rise</h4>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> paper claims that future damages caused by rising sea levels based on predictions from computer models “must be considered inflated and unreliable.” </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The paper also claims that there has been no recent acceleration in sea level rise and that real world observations are showing a slowdown.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Australia-based Dr John Hunter, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, has published extensively on sea level rise in leading peer-reviewed journals. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">After reviewing the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report on sea level rise, Dr Hunter told DeSmogBlog:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">If this was a review of the literature written by a student, then it would get a very poor fail - it ignores most of the scientific work that has been done, and instead relies on relatively obscure and carefully selected papers from a small number of authors.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">One of those authors is an Australia-based engineer called Alberto Boretti, who recently changed his name to Albert Parker. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Dr Parker works on “green engines” at <span class="caps">RMIT</span> University in Melbourne. He is a member of a group known as <a href="http://www.principia-scientific.org/About/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic.html" target="_blank">Principia Scientific International</a> whose head claims carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and cannot warm the planet. <span class="caps">PSI</span> is on the very fringes of the climate science denial fringe.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Dr Parker has published several papers with another Australian, Thomas Watson, </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/04/28/ufos-sea-level-rise-and-magnetism-climate-science-denial" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">who believes <span class="caps">CO</span>2 cannot cause climate change</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> and instead has blamed “magnetism” – a theory sparked in Watson’s mind after seeing a <span class="caps">UFO</span> while backstage at a rock concert.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">A claim in the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report that “observations reveal no acceleration of sea level rise over the past century” was, Hunter told DeSmogBlog, “both misleading and largely irrelevant.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">He said observations of global sea levels were actually in line with the predictions of climate models. Dr Hunter said:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The authors provide no quantitative estimate of what the acceleration “should” be if sea level were actually rising according to “<span class="caps">AGW</span> theory”. The real test of the models is whether they reproduce observed sea level, and over the past half-century (when we have good observational data), they do appear to. The models in fact show that the present acceleration should be small.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<h5>
<strong>A belief in themselves</strong></h5>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">With reports like this, the coal industry in the <span class="caps">US</span> and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/30/australian-report-trumpeted-coal-bosses-does-not-say-what-they-want-you-think-it-says" target="_blank">Australia</a> seems desperate to convince policy makers and the public that its position as the historically dominant source of the world’s electricity should continue.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Yet an increasing number of global investors with an influence over billions of dollars in funds – including the World Bank – disagree.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>I believe in the future,” said <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> in its original 2008 television advertisements.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The self-interested <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> does not appear to believe in an honest appraisal of the science of climate change and seems happy to rely on denial, at the expense of society at large.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10px;"><em>Image credit: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLZ-hvVVGmY">Mark Fiore</a></em></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2931">ACCCE</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4149">Craig Idso</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12502">alberto boretti</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12503">albert parker</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2207">sea level rise</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2930">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6467">Peabody</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2540">desmogblog</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12498">thomas watson</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3062">climate denial</a></div></div></div>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 03:34:01 +0000Graham Readfearn7829 at http://www.desmogblog.comCarbon Emissions And Financial Risk Concentrated In 90 Top Emitters Responsible For 60% Of Emissionshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/16/carbon-emissions-and-financial-risk-concentrated-90-top-emitters-responsible-60-emissions
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_113261461.jpg?itok=VTR23I8w" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>A survey<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/10/survey-lists-best-and-worst-financial-funds-when-it-comes-climate-change-risk"> released</a> last week indicates many major institutional investors, such as retirement funds and insurance companies, are putting their investments at risk by neglecting to address the negative financial impacts posed by climate change.</p>
<p>It’s no wonder that some of these investments are dicey when you consider the findings of another <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y">paper</a> released last month, which indicated 90 companies are responsible for two-thirds of manmade carbon emissions. That’s not just a huge concentration of carbon emissions — it’s a concentrated dose of financial risk.</p>
<p>Published in the journal of Climatic Change, the report, “Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010,” uses public records and data from the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Department of Energy to calculate emissions based on the companies’ entire supply chains.</p>
<p>All but seven of the 90 companies identified are part of the fossil fuel industry.</p>
<p>Nearly 30 percent of emissions were produced by just the top 20 companies. Together, ExxonMobil, Chevron, <span class="caps">BP</span>, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips and Peabody Energy, all investor-owned companies, are responsible for more than 13 percent of manmade carbon emissions.</p>
<p>These companies also have a disproportionate amount of political influence in North America. In the United States alone, <a href="http://www.dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=Exxon+Mobil&amp;com=1737&amp;can=&amp;zip=&amp;search=1&amp;type=search#view=connections">ExxonMobil</a>, <a href="http://www.dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=Chevron+Corp&amp;com=951&amp;can=&amp;zip=&amp;search=1&amp;type=search#view=connections">Chevron</a> and <a href="http://www.dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=British+Petroleum&amp;com=671&amp;can=&amp;zip=&amp;search=1&amp;type=search#view=connections"><span class="caps">BP</span></a> have contributed more than $12 million to lawmakers since 1999.</p>
<p>Half of the emissions traced by the report were produced in the last 25 years, when awareness of global warming was increasing. Concerted efforts to deny climate science and halt climate policy began in the early 1990s. As an updated <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/Dealing%20in%20Doubt%202013%20-%20Greenpeace%20report%20on%20Climate%20Change%20Denial%20Machine.pdf">Greenpeace report</a> released in September 2013 shows, the climate denial machine has its roots in Exxon’s <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/10/dealing-in-doubt-greenpeace-exposes-fossil-fuel-funded-climate-denial-machine">funding of front groups</a>.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>These companies have also received billions of dollars to pollute. The International Monetary Fund estimates the fossil fuel industry receives about <a href="http://tcktcktck.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=785c636068bceae1e01c92425&amp;id=fe77123742&amp;e=eaac47eda1">$1.9 trillion dollars</a> in global subsidies.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/20/dirty-energy-subsidies-are-5x-more-climate-aid-pledged-activists-ask-wtf">reported by DeSmog</a>, an Oil Change International briefing paper released during <span class="caps">COP</span>19 in Warsaw revealed that, “subsidies lavished on the on the fossil fuel industry by wealthy industrialized nations add up to more than five times the amount of climate finance aid the same countries have so far pledged to deliver to poorer nations to reduce their global warming emissions and adapt to manmade climate change.”</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>What I think could be a game changer here is the potential for clearly fingerprinting the sources of those future emissions,” climate scientist Michael Mann <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change">told The Guardian</a>. “It increases the accountability for fossil fuel burning. You can’t burn fossil fuels without the rest of the world knowing about it.”<br /><br /><span style="font-size:10px;"><em>Image credit: Financial risk bomb via <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-113261461/stock-photo-ball-of-euro-bills-shaped-like-an-old-bomb-government-debt-and-financial-crisis-concept.html?src=sdpFi6CPYmx4KBZ_8fcYjQ-1-6">Shutterstock</a></em></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14739">financial impacts of climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14740">institutional investors</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1976">emissions</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/657">ExxonMobil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/chevron">chevron</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1002">bp</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1268">shell</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2760">Conoco Phillips</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div></div></div>Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:56:12 +0000Caroline Selle7699 at http://www.desmogblog.com